[00:00:09]
[ Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]
LET'S GO AHEAD.THIS IS THE OCTOBER 11TH, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND WE'RE GONNA, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND BRING THIS, UH, MEETING TO ORDER AT 6 0 9.
UM, WE'RE, DO, DO A QUICK ROLL CALL HERE.
START WITH THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ON THE DIAS.
UM, START WITH MR. ANDERSON HERE.
AND MOVING TO THE RIGHT, WE'VE GOT COMMISSIONER AAR HERE.
THEN, UM, COMMISSIONER MUTO HERE, UH, COMMISSIONER SHE HERE.
AND MOVING ON TO THE VIRTUAL SPACE.
WE HAVE, UH, THE VICE CHAIR HEMPLE HERE.
COMMISSIONER COX HERE, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER HERE.
UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES HERE, AND COMMISSIONER UH, THOMPSON HERE.
I THINK THAT BRINGS THIS UP IF I'M COUNTING RIGHT UP TO 10 RIGHT NOW.
UM, SO WE'LL SEE IF WE GET ANY MORE JOINING US A LITTLE LATER.
UM, FIRSTLY JUST WANT TO GO OVER, UH, WITH FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE.
WE DO HAVE A FEW CASES THIS EVENING.
UM, SO HYBRID MEANS WE HAVE YOU AND THEN WE ALL HAVE PEOPLE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY, UH, SPEAKERS AND COMMISSIONERS, THE LIKE, AND PERHAPS SOME STAFF AS WELL, UH, FROM THE CITY.
SO, UM, IF ONCE WE GO THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND IF WE ARE DISCUSSING YOUR CASE, IF YOU ARE NOT THE FIRST CASE TO BE HEARD, YOU CAN WAIT OUT IN THE LOBBY AND YOU'LL GET A, A NOTICE, UM, ABOUT FIVE MINUTES OR MORE, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE TAKE UP THE NEXT ITEM.
AND THEN YOU CAN COME ON IN IF YOU WANT.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAY HERE THE WHOLE TIME, BUT THINGS ARE REALLY EXCITING.
SO, YOU KNOW, WELCOME, YOU'RE WELCOME TO STAY.
UM, SO WITH THAT, UM, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND JUST CHECKING, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? NO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
UM, THOSE, UH, ATTENDING VIRTUALLY JUST HAVE YOUR GREEN, RED, YELLOW CARDS THAT HELP ME, UH, TALLY UP THE VOTES.
I'LL BE, UH, TRYING TO ANNOUNCE THOSE VOTING, UH, AGAINST OR ABSTAINING, UH, SO THE PUBLIC KNOWS THE NUMBERS.
AND GO AHEAD AND LET'S MOVE INTO THE, OH, I'LL JUST RECOGNIZE WE HAVE COMMISSIONER HOWARD JOINING US, SO THAT BRINGS US UP TO 11.
UM, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, LET ME, COMMISSIONER FLORES, ARE YOU ABLE TO DO THE FIRST READING THIS EVENING? YES, I AM.
AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THAT, AND THEN I'LL ASK TYPICAL QUESTIONS IF THERE'S ANY, UH, FOLKS THAT NEED TO RECUSE.
AND THEN, UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO OUR DISCUSSION CASES.
[Reading of the Agenda]
START WITH THE FIRST READING OF THE AGENDA.ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE APPROVAL A MINUTES.
NUMBER ONE, APPROVED THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27TH, 2022.
NUMBER TWO, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 18 0 0 2 1 0.02.
THAT IS APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT THREE.
PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 22 0 0 2, 8 0.0 1 11 1 14 AND 11 2 0 6 JOSEPH CLAYTON DRIVE.
NUMBER FOUR, REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 8 9.
JOSEPH CLAYTON DRIVE, THAT ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.
NUMBER FIVE, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 0 5 0.02 ON TOPS MULTIFAMILY.
THAT ITEM IS AN APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 8TH.
NUMBER SIX, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 22 0 0 1 4 0.02.
NUMBER SEVEN, REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 8 8.
NUMBER EIGHT, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 22 0 0 2, 9 0.02 ST.
NUMBER NINE, REZONING C 14 20 22 0 1.
NUMBER 10, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 2 5 0.0 1 2 90 WEST AND SCENIC BROOK.
THAT ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
NUMBER 11, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 19 0 0 1 3 0.01 COPELAND SOUTH.
THAT ITEM IS A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 25TH,
[00:05:02]
NUMBER 12, REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 8 5 COPELAND SOUTH.THAT ITEM IS ALSO UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 25TH, NUMBER 13 C 14 20 22 0 0 86 MERL SINGLE FAMILY.
THAT ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
C 14, UH, EXCUSE ME, NUMBER 14, REZONING C 14 20 22 0 0 1 5 SPRINGDALE COMMERCIAL.
THAT ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 15TH, WHICH IS OUR MEETING AT 5:00 PM UM, NUMBER 15, REZONING C 14 20 22 7 0.
SPRINGDALE COMMERCIAL TRACK TWO AMENDED.
THAT ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 15TH AT 5:00 PM NUMBER 16, REZONING C 14 20 22 0 2 0 6 15 17 KRAMER LANE.
THAT ITEM IS APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 15TH AT FIVE O'CLOCK.
NUMBER 17, REZONING C 14 20 22 0 2 11 9 0 9 MONOPOLI.
THAT ITEM IS A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 8TH, NUMBER 18, REZONING C 14 20 22 0 1 2 0 5 0 0 3 BURN, LLC.
THAT ITEM IS APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 15TH AT FIVE O'CLOCK.
NUMBER 19, HISTORIC ZONING C 14 H 20 22 0 0 7 3 WESTGATE TOWER.
THAT ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
NUMBER 20, SITE PLAN P 20 21 0 4 6 C GIVENS DISTRICT PARK AQUATIC FACILITY.
NUMBER 21, SITE PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE, SP 20 21 0 3 5 0 C SCH CYCLE.
THAT ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS.
NUMBER 22, PRELIMINARY PLAN C 8 20 22 0 1 1 2.
VELOCITY PRELIMINARY PLAN W R C 8 20 20 0 1 4 1.
CODE AMENDMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS AND SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
AND THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION WITH, UH, WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
NUMBER 24, CODE AMENDMENT C 20 20 21 0 1 4 PROJECT CONNECT.
THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT AND WAS RECOMMENDED BY ENVIRONMENTAL CON COMMISSION, UM, BY A VOTE OF EIGHT TO ZERO.
AND THAT IS THE FIRST READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ON THAT 18, WAS THAT, UM, WAS THERE A DATE CERTAIN WE WERE HEARING THAT WAS PULLED OFF? CONSENT? ARE YOU ASKING ME CHAIR? YES.
UH, APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 15TH AT FIVE O'CLOCK.
DO WE, UH, COMMISSIONERS, UM, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM ANY OF THE CASES THIS EVENING? OKAY, HEARING NONE.
UM, JUST A FEW ANNOUNCE I DID OFFER UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE THAT HAD QUESTIONS ON THE LAST ITEM ON THE PROJECT CONNECT.
UH, JUST KNOWING WE HAD A PRETTY GOOD, UH, HEALTHY AGENDA THIS EVENING.
UM, I WANTED TO AVOID HAVING TWO CODE AMENDMENT HEARINGS.
UH, SO I THINK WE HAD SOME Q AND A, UH, HOPEFULLY WE GOT ALL THE QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
BUT THIS WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY JUST IF ANYONE HAD ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ITEM, UH, JUST SO WE COULD KEEP IT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
IS THERE ANY FOLLOW UP NEEDED? OKAY, GOOD.
WE'LL KEEP THAT ONE ON CONSENT.
I'M GONNA GO AND READ THROUGH THIS ONE MORE TIME AND FAIR.
I HAVE A QUESTION ON, ON ITEM 13, THE MERLE ITEM.
WAS I THE ONLY ONE? I MEAN, ABSENT A CONCERN TO YOU, BUT WAS I THE ONLY ONE? CAUSE I DON'T, I KNOW WE HAVE A VERY FULL AGENDA
[00:10:01]
AND I DON'T THINK I'M LIKELY TO PREVAIL AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE IT OFF CONSENT IF I CAN JUST BE SHOWN AS VOTING.NO, I THINK WE HAD A SPEAKER AND OPPOSITION, WHICH IS SO I DON'T THINK IT WAS YOU DRIVING THAT.
[Consent Agenda]
LET'S GO AHEAD AND READ THIS.SO THE FIRST OH, AND DID, I'D FAILED TO ASK, BUT DID ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? UH, THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND READ THROUGH THE, UM, THE IT HERE WE HAVE ITEM ONE, APPROVAL A MINUTES, AND THEN UNDER PUBLIC HEARINGS.
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO, PLAN AMENDMENT, APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
ITEM THREE, PLAN AMENDMENT ON CONSENT.
ITEM FOUR, REZONING ON CONSENT.
ITEM FIVE, APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 8TH.
ITEM SIX, PLAN AMENDMENT ON CONSENT.
ITEM SEVEN, REZONING ON CONSENT.
ITEM EIGHT, PLAN AMENDMENT ON CONSENT.
ITEM NINE, REZONING ON CONSENT.
ITEM 10, PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
ITEM 11, PLAN AMENDMENT STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 25TH.
ITEM 12, REZONING STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO OCTOBER 25TH.
THERE WILL BE A DISCUSSION CASE.
ITEM 14, REZONING APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 15TH, 5:00 PM ITEM 15, REZONING, APPLICANT POSTPONE NOVEMBER 15TH, 5:00 PM ITEM 16, REZONING APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT NOVEMBER 15TH, 5:00 PM ITEM 17, REZONING NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONE TO NOVEMBER 8TH 18.
REZONING IS APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 15TH AT 5:00 PM 19.
HISTORIC ZONING CASE SETS OUR WESTGATE TOWER DISCUSSION CASE 20, SITE PLAN ON CONSENT, 21 SITE PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE.
ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE IS ON CONSENT WITH THE EN UH, ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE BACKUP.
THIS IS, UH, A CODE AMENDMENT.
UM, AS NOTED, WE DID CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, WE MAY HAVE A FEW SPEAKERS THAT WILL ENTERTAIN IF, UM, I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE A FEW, UH, Q AND A WAS CONDUCTED, SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE RIGHT IN DISCUSSION.
WE DID HAVE A WORKING GROUP, SO WE'LL HAVE THEM GIVE US A QUICK OVERVIEW OF EACH OF THEIR AMENDMENTS, UH, BEFORE WE DECIDE, YOU KNOW, WHAT TO DO WITH THOSE.
UH, ITEM 24, CODE AMENDMENT IS ON CONSENT AND JUST NOTED THIS IS RECOMMENDED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION EIGHT TO ZERO.
UM, SO WITH THAT, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA? YES, COMMISSIONERS ARE SURE.
CAN I JUST MAKE A CHAIR? WOULD BE OKAY FOR ME TO JUST MAKE A QUICK COMMENT? OH, PLEASE.
SO THIS WOULD BE AN ITEM 24, WHICH IS A PROJECT CONNECT ITEM.
I JUST REALLY WANT TO THANK OUR STAFF FOR WORKING ON THIS, SERVING ON THE PROJECT CONNECT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
I KNOW THAT BODY IS VERY EXCITED TO SEE SOME OF THIS WORK MOVE FORWARD.
AND I THINK WE'RE SEEING THE WORK THAT, UM, A LOT OF OUR COMMUNITY HAS WANTED FOR A VERY LONG TIME COME TO FRUITION.
AND THE WORK OF OUR STAFF IS REALLY MOVING THAT ALONG.
SO I JUST WANNA THANK THE STAFF TEAM FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS.
AND I ALSO WANNA THANK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UH, FOR SUPPORTING THIS ITEM.
DO I HAVE A MOTION, UH, TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? UH, COMMISSIONER ZA SECOND ADVISED BY HEMPLE, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, THOSE ON THE DIAS, LET'S EVERYONE, THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
WE'RE GONNA MOVE TO OUR FIRST DISCUSS IN CASE, WHICH I THOUGHT I HAD THE ORDER.
AND THIS IS, WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP NUMBER, WHICH ONE IS IT? YEAH, IS THAT 13? OKAY.
[13. Rezoning: C14-2022-0086 - Merle Single Family; District 5]
TAKE, UH, ITEM 13 UP FIRST.AND SO HERE FROM STAFF CHAIR COMMISSION LAY LIAISON, I DO WISH TO ENTERTAIN A Q AND A AT 5 0 3 OH.
[00:15:01]
THIS POTENTIALLY COULD BE A LATE EVENING, UH, GOING INTO THIS, UM, FOR STARTERS, IF, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION, I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD THE Q AND A ON THE EVERYTHING.BUT THE, UH, ITEM 23, WHICH WILL HAVE A MORE ROBUST, ROBUST DISCUSSION, UM, IS HOLD IT TO FIVE COMMISSIONERS AT, UH, FIVE MINUTES, THREE MINUTES.
YEAH, WE, THAT WILL KEEP IT DOWN.
ANY OPPOSITION TO MODIFYING OUR RULES JUST TO GET OUTTA HERE AT A DECENT HOUR.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND KEEP THE Q AND A TO FIVE COMMISSIONERS AT THREE MINUTES.
MY NAME IS WENDY ROSE WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS, UH, REZONING IS, IS FOR 44 0 7.
MERLE DRIVE, UH, CONSISTS OF A PLATTED LOT AND CONTAINS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND IS ZONED L O N P FOR LIMITED OFFICE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DISTRICT.
THERE ARE RESIDENCES ALONG BOTH SIDES OF MERLE DRIVE, UH, ZONED S F THREE, AS WELL AS OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES TO THE NORTH AT THE INTERSECTION WITH EASTBOUND BEN WHITE BOULEVARD.
THE APPLICANT HAS FILED A REQUEST TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY FROM L O N P TO S F THREE N P, UH, WITH THE INTENT OF EITHER BUILDING A TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE OR A DUPLEX ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST BECAUSE THE LOT, UH, MEETS THE INTENT OF THE SF THREE DISTRICT AT FRONTS ON RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF MERLE DRIVE AND REZONING WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE USES THAT ARE ESTABLISHED THE EAST, SOUTH, AND WEST OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THE CHAIR WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, MISS VICTORIA HAI.
SEE, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA HASI WITH THROWER DESIGN ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNER.
UM, SO THIS IS THE, THE SITE, THE SUBJECT TRACT IS MAYBE A LITTLE CHALLENGING TO SEE, BUT IT'S THE LITTLE BLACK OUTLINED POLYGON IN THE MAP IN FRONT OF YOU.
IT'S ON THE SOUTHEAST COR, OR SOUTHEAST QUADRANT, I GUESS YOU WOULD SAY OF THIS IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CENTER.
UM, IT IS IN PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT AND EXISTING TRANSIT BUS STOPS AND, AND SERVICE LINES.
SO THE SITE'S A LITTLE OVER A QUARTER OF AN ACRE, AND IT HAS L O N P ZONING TODAY.
UH, THE REQUEST IS FOR SF THREE, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
UM, THE DESIRES TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITH A TWO FAMILY, USE A MAIN HOUSE AND AN ADU.
UM, AND THE SITE DOESN'T HAVE, UH, MUCH FRONTAGE.
IT'S, IT'S ABOUT 60 FEET OF FRONTAGE, SO ALL THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED HERE IS ONE HOUSE AND AN ADU.
THERE ARE EIGHT HERITAGE TREES ON THE SITE, WHICH DOES NOT MAKE IT CONDUCIVE TO, UM, OUR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND IS THAT THE REASON WHY IT'S BEING REQUESTED FOR SF THREE DEVELOPMENT? AGAIN, IT IS.
THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION, MS. CATHERINE.
WE, MS. SWEARY WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
I'M SORRY, YOU SAID FIVE MINUTES? YES, MA'AM.
I, I DON'T, I CAN'T TELL WHO'S TALKING.
IF I STAND ON THE FRONT CORNER OF MY PROPERTY AND TAKE 32 STEPS THAT DIRECTION, I'M ON THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
I SEE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED THIS ZONING CHANGE, BUT THEY DON'T LIVE ON MERLE DRIVE.
HAVE ANY OF YOU BEEN TO MERLE DRIVE? I WOULDN'T HAVE EXPECTED.
LONG AS SHE SAID, THE FIRST STREET EAST OF, OF MAN TRACK GOING SOUTH OFF, BEN WHITE ACCESS, I'M IN THE FIRST BLOCK CROSSES RED.
AND THEN, UH, THERE WAS A VACANT LOT THERE AND 20 HOMES GOT BUILT ON THAT VACANT LOT.
YOU CAN IMAGINE WHAT THAT DID FOR THE TRAFFIC ON OUR LITTLE TWO BLOCK STREET.
THIS IS A 1950S NEIGHBORHOOD CARPORTS, NO VAULTED CEILINGS, VERY MODEST HOMES.
THERE ARE FIVE HOMES ACROSS FROM ME, SIX ON MY SIDE.
IT'S ONLY 11TH STREET'S, A VERY SHORT
[00:20:01]
BLOCK.THE CORNER AT RED, 44 14 IS ALREADY MULTIPLE PROPERTIES.
THEY BUILT TWO RESIDENCES WHERE THERE HAD BEEN A HOME IN A FRONT YARD.
MY FAVORITE GROUP WAS THE GROUP THAT SHOWED UP AT 2:00 AM MULTIPLE CARS, DRUNKEN PEOPLE, A BOAT ON A TRAILER, AND THEY SPENT THE REST OF THE NIGHT ARGUING OVER HOW TO GET THAT TRAILER WITH A BOAT INTO THE DRIVEWAY THAT'S LOCATED RIGHT BY A POWER POLE.
NOBODY GOT MUCH SLEEP THAT NIGHT.
THE NEXT BLOCK, THE OTHER BLOCK WILL HAVE A SHORT TERM RENTAL SOON.
WE'VE RECEIVED A NOTICE FROM THE CITY ABOUT THAT AT 45 16.
SO THEY'RE GONNA HAVE FUN IN THAT BLOCK TOO, ON MY BLOCK AT 44 13, DIRECTLY ACROSS THIS WAY.
THAT PROPERTY SOLD A YEAR AGO, AND THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON RE RENOVATING THE MAIN OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, PUTTING IN A NEW YARD.
NOW, APPARENTLY THEY HAVEN'T TOLD THE CITY ANYTHING BECAUSE WE'VE GOTTEN NO NOTICES, BUT THEY'VE TOLD ALL THE NEIGHBORS THEY PLAN TO BUILD ANOTHER RESIDENCE IN THE BACK OF THAT LOT AS WELL.
KEEP IN MIND, THERE ARE FIVE HOUSES, SO THAT'S A DOUBLE ONE THERE.
THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN LISTED ON ZILLOW FOR MONTHS ALREADY FOR OVER 3 MILLION.
KEEP IN MIND IT'S TWO PROPERTIES AWAY FROM BEN WHITE, BUT THEY'RE GONNA SELL IT FOR 3 MILLION, OVER 3 MILLION.
AND IF YOU'VE GOT THAT KIND OF MONEY, THEY'RE HAPPY TO PUT TWO STRUCTURES.
THEY EVEN DEPICT A SWIMMING POOL.
WON'T THAT BE SWANK? WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT IS THAT THEY PAID AN OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE FOR THAT PROPERTY THIS SPRING, AND THEY WANNA PACK AS MUCH ONTO IT AS THEY CAN AND GET AS RICH AS THEY CAN OFF OF THAT PROPERTY.
AND IF YOU'RE TELLING YOURSELVES THAT ALL OF THIS IS BUILDING COMMUNITY, LET ME, YOU, YOU SHOULD NOT BE TELLING YOURSELF THAT IN THE PAST TWO YEARS, OUT OF JUST MY BLOCK, 11 HOUSES, FOUR SETS OF PEOPLE HAVE MOVED OUT, HAVE LEFT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, THREE OF THEM OUT OF TOTAL DISGUST FOR WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY MOVED TO KYLE, EVEN PORTER RANCHES.
THEY DID NOT WANNA LIVE THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION DISRUPTION AND THE RIDICULOUS ARCHITECTURE.
THE TOTAL CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF THIS COMMUNITY.
I KNOW, UH, CLEARLY THEY'RE NOT LOOKING TO FOR THIS TO IMPROVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE AREA.
NOT WITH A SWIMMING POOL ON THE PROPERTY AND NOT FOR SALE FOR $3 MILLION.
YOU'RE NOT BUILDING COMMUNITIES, YOU'RE TEARING APART NEIGHBORHOODS.
YOU HAVE THE POWER TO JUST SAY NO ON.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA AGAIN.
SO THE SITE TODAY HAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND A DETACHED GARAGE.
AND, UM, I GUESS DURING THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS OR SOME TIME AROUND THERE, THE SITE RECEIVED LO ZONING, WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IT'S BEEN ON THE SITE FOR SEVERAL DECADES.
AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS A REZONING, A DOWN ZONING, UM, TO BUILD BACK ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, BUT THIS TIME WITH AN ADU IN ADDITION.
SO, UM, IT'S GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS ON THE STREET TODAY.
UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, SOME OF THEM, SOME OF THE HOUSES HAVE ADUS.
UM, SO WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS A REQUEST THAT ALSO, AGAIN, IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UM, MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
GONNA GET BACK TO THE ROOM, UH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
OH, SORRY,
SO, UM, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON CLOSING IN THE PUBLIC.
AND THAT'S ALL GREEN, SO THAT'S 10
[00:25:01]
ZERO.UM, WELL, SO WE'RE AT FIVE COMMISSIONERS, THREE MINUTES EACH.
ANY QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER MITCH TYLER.
SORRY, QUESTION IS FOR OPPOSITION SPEAKER.
UM, I WANNA UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS A LITTLE BETTER.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED LO AND IF I'M CORRECT, SOMEBODY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT'S, THAT'S GONNA BE OFFICE COMMERCIAL.
SO IT'S CURRENTLY GOT ZONING TO PUT AN OFFICE ON THAT PROPERTY.
UM, AND IF THE CONCERN WAS THE TRAFFIC AND THE CHANGING IN THE AREA, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE SF THREE REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT IS OBJECTIONABLE FOR YOU.
YOU HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THAT.
I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
YOU'RE OUR ONLY OPPOSITION SPEAKER, SO YOU WILL, I DON'T KNOW WHY THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD THAT ZONING.
THERE IS A GARAGE BACK THERE THAT HAS A SIDE DOOR, SO IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEBODY YOU COULD FINISH IT OUT AND LIVE THERE.
UH, IF YOU WANTED AN AU THERE WA HASN'T BEEN.
I'VE LIVED THERE 20 YEARS COME FEBRUARY.
HE HAD MOVED IN A NUMBER OF YEARS BEFORE THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S ZONED AS IT IS.
THERE ARE IS ANOTHER RESIDENCE OR TWO WHAT WERE RESIDENTS ON THE STREET ON MY SIDE? UH, ONE'S LAW OFFICE.
I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S ZONED THAT WAY.
I WANNA MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WITHOUT THE APPLICANT COMING AND REQUESTING A CHANGE, THEY COULD PUT IN OFFICE AND RETAIL THERE, THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE ZONED FOR.
AND THEY WOULDN'T EVEN COME BEFORE US OR REQUEST PERMISSION FOR THAT, WHICH IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD CREATE MORE PROBLEM THAN STAYING WITH THE SF THREE.
EVEN EVEN IF IT IS A DIFFERENT CALIBER OF HOME, THEY'RE GOING TO TEAR DOWN THE EXISTING HOUSE.
AND KEEP IN MIND, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR MORE THAN 3 MILLION OUT OF THIS PROPERTY.
CLEARLY THIS IS NOT JUST A LITTLE GRANDMA COTTAGE PLAN FOR THE BACK, ESPECIALLY WITH A SWIMMING POOL DEPICTED ON ZOOM.
THEIR INTENTIONS ARE NOT TO SIMPLY BUILD A LITTLE SECONDARY LITTLE STRUCTURE THERE.
OKAY, THANK YOU MY COMMISSIONERS.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER SHAY AND THEN FOLLOWED BY VICE CHAIR.
HE, WHAT QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SO, UH, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE'S HERITAGE TREES ON THIS AND HOW MANY, THERE'S UH, NINE TREES TOTAL.
AND SO WHAT AREAS REALLY LEFT TO EVEN BUILD? UM, EIGHT, THOSE EIGHT HERITAGE TREES ARE IN THE FRONT SETBACK.
AND THEN THERE, THE ONE TREE THAT'S NOT HERITAGE, BUT IT IS PROTECTED, IS AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
SO, UM, IT'S, IT'S QUITE A BIT OF, OF FRONTAGE THAT'S TAKEN UP BECAUSE OF HERITAGE TREES AND CRITICAL ROOT ZONES.
SO FROM WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, IT'S KIND OF A LARGEST LOT, BUT EQUIVALENT ABOUT OF A WHAT SIZE INFILL LOT WOULD YOU SAY? THIS IS MORE LIKE IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT YOU CAN DEVELOP YEAH.
OF USABLE, LIKE COMPARE, IS THIS MORE LIKE A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, A 5,000, YOU KNOW, BY THE TIME YOU FACTOR WHAT WE CAN'T USE BECAUSE OF THE HERITAGE TREES? UH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I MEAN, THE LOT IS JUST A LITTLE OVER A QUARTER OF AN ACRE RIGHT NOW.
UM,
RON THROWER LOOKING AT THE TREE SURVEY THAT WE HAD, AND I WISHED I'D BROUGHT ONE, BUT, UH, I'D SAY ABOUT A THIRD OF THE PROPERTY'S GONNA BE ENCUMBERED BY HERITAGE TREES AND THE CRITICAL ZONES.
AND THE INTENT HERE IS, I MEAN, I GUESS WITH THIS BIG, YOU CAN BUILD DUPLEX HOUSE WITH ADU.
UM, I MEAN, IS UH, IS THE INTENT HERE JUST TO BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THAT? OR IS IT A DUPLEX OR IS IT, UM, HOUSE AND AN ADU IS WHAT WE, WE'VE BEEN TOLD.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS 3 MILLION, I MEAN, IS THAT, IS IT IN THE INTENT TO, THIS IS THE FIRST WE'VE HEARD OF THIS PRICE, BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK WE ALL KNOW THE PRICE IS WHATEVER THE MARKET WILL BEAR PERSONALLY, $3 MILLION.
[00:30:01]
SEEN.I MEAN, I, AND I'M IN REAL ESTATE.
I THAT, THAT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT I THINK THE VALUE OF THIS IS.
IT'S, IT'S PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN TRIPLE OF WHAT IT IS EVEN PROBABLY EVEN WORTH EVEN LESS.
WELL, I'M SITTING AT MY COMPUTER.
UM, I WAS ABLE TO PULL UP THE ZILLOW LISTING, UM, AND I, I KNOW ZILLOW ISN'T COMPLETELY ACCURATE FOR UNDERSTANDING PRICES, BUT IT IS ON ZILLOW FOR $3,000,088 OR SOMETHING.
UM, AND THEY DO HAVE THE PLANS DRAFTED UP SEVEN BEDROOM, EIGHT BATH HOME.
UM, SO I'M, THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ABOUT THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PROCESS AND, UM, WHAT'S THE STATE OF THAT IN AUSTIN RIGHT NOW? LIKE IF THIS HOME WAS BUILT, THEN DO THEY THEN APPLY FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL AND AND ARE THE NEIGHBORS NOTICED? UH, REGARDING THE SHORT TERM RENTAL? YES, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO, UH, REGISTER WITH THE CITY.
UM, AND I, BUT THAT'S REALLY ALL I KNOW ABOUT THAT.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? YOU HAVE A COUPLE MORE SPOTS? UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, IF, IF I LOOK AT IT, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S SORT OF CADDY CORNERED FROM, UH, LAND THAT'S ZONED, UH, G V NP.
UM, SO IF, IF THEY BUILD A 3 MILLION HOME HERE OR A 5 MILLION HOME ON A $3 MILLION LOT, IT WOULD THAT HOUSE THEN TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY FOR THE, THE GRV LAND? SO THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR IS L O IS THAT DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH? IS IS L O SO YES.
IF IT'S, IF IT IS, UH, REZONED SF THREE, THEN YES, THAT WOULD TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY, UM, AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, WHICH IS L O N P.
AND, AND IS THERE ANYTHING THAT
BUT SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO ASK, SO HOW DOES THAT WORK? THEY ASK THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR THEY ASK THE CITY, UH, THEY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO, UH, FILE AN APPLICATION WITH, WITH THE CITY.
I MEAN, THAT ASSUMES THAT THERE IS A SITE PLAN APPLICATION THAT, UM, IS ACTIVE OR BECOMES, UH, IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, OR I SUPPOSE THE PROPERTY TO THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET THAT'S ZONED LO UM, I THINK THAT IS DEVELOPED WITH AN OFFICE.
BUT YEAH, IF THERE WAS A SITE PLAN, UM, YES, THIS SF THREE ZONE WOULD LOT WOULD TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY AND THERE WOULD BE A, UH, COMPATIBILITY WAIVER PROCESS THAT, UH, THEY COULD, THEY COULD REQUEST AS PART OF A SITE PLAN.
UM, I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. THROWER OR, OR MS. HUSSEY, UH, RON THROWER HERE.
UM, SO W WOULD YOU BE WILLING AT ALL TO HAVE SOME SORT OF, UM, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT SAID THAT, THAT YOU WOULD SUPPORT A WAIVER FOR COMPATIBILITY IN THE FUTURE? WE'D HAVE TO GET WITH OUR CLIENT ON THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE, BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT TODAY THERE'S AN EXISTING HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY.
AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S ZONED COMMERCIAL, THAT HOUSE ALONE TRIGGERS COMPATIBILITY TODAY.
SO REZONING IS NOT CHANGING THE COMPATIBILITY MATTER.
BUT IF THAT HOUSE WERE TO BE USED AS AN OFFICE, THEN THEN IT WOULD NOT, IF THAT'S A QUESTION, THEN THE ANSWER'S YES.
DO YOU HAVE MOTION? UH, I THINK IT'S OUR COMMISSIONERS
[00:35:01]
ARE FIRST COMMISSIONER.I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER? SHE DON, SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION.
I, YOU KNOW, I THINK SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY ARE VERY REAL AND I THING NEIGHBORS AROUND THE CITY ARE FACING THOSE KIND OF PRESSURES.
UM, BUT HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK COMMISSION ALDER HAD A REALLY GOOD POINT THAT IF WE WANNA MANAGE THOSE, UM, ISSUES, IN SOME WAYS ZONING TO SINGLE FAMILY WILL PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THOSE PRESSURES PRE, SINCE OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL CAN HAVE THEIR OWN RULES THEN CAN CAUSE CERTAIN CONCERNS.
SO I THINK THAT IS ONE REASON WHY WE SHOULD SUPPORT THIS IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT GENERALLY SEEMS TO BE SUPPORTED AND IS LARGELY IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
UM, ONE LAST THING I'LL SAY ON THIS IS I REALLY HOPE THAT WE CAN FIND A WAY TO NOT HAVE A LOT OF HOUSING NEXT TO OUR HIGHWAYS.
AND I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH, BUT ALSO SEEING SOME OF THE LIMITATIONS ON THIS SITE WITH THE HERITAGE TREES, UH, TO COMMISSIONER SHE'S POINT, REALLY APART FROM WHERE THE STRUCTURES ARE TODAY, IT'S VERY HARD TO EXPAND THE FOOTPRINT OR CREATE SOMETHING ELSE.
SO CONSIDERING ALL THOSE LIMITATIONS, BOTH FOR THE DEVELOPER AND THINKING WHAT WOULD SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S NEEDS, IT MAKES SENSE TO SUPPORT THIS.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, COMMISS MR. THOMPSON.
SO I, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT JUST BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY ON A PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S GOT MUCH MORE INTENSIVE ZONING.
UH, IT'S WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF A, A TRANSIT STATION, THE WESTGATE TRANSIT CENTER.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T LIKE PUTTING LOTS OF HOUSING ON OR DEVELOPMENT ON ACCESS ROADS.
UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY WE CAN HAVE THOSE ROADS BE MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY IN THE FUTURE.
UH, AND, YOU KNOW, ZONING THIS FOR, FOR THE LUXURY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING NOW IS, IS GOING TO BE DENYING OPTIONS ON OTHER PROPERTIES AND WE JUST DON'T NEED TO BE EXPANDING THE FOOTPRINT OF SINGLE FAMILY ZONING IN AUSTIN RIGHT NOW.
ALL RIGHT, COMMITTER SPEAKING IN FAVOR, MR. CHE.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS PROPERTY GOT THIS ZONING AS WELL.
I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE, I MEAN, OFTENTIMES WHEN, UM, PROPERTIES GET ANNEXED, UM, THEY'RE JUST KIND OF GIVEN WHAT SOMETHING WAS INTENDED AND IF NOBODY, UM, YOU KNOW, SAYS NO, THEN IT'S ASSIGNED TO IT.
BUT WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF CASES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE COME FORWARD AND JUST SAID, LOOK, I JUST WANT THE ZONING THAT FITS MY USE THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR SO LONG.
AND A LOT OF THIS IS THEY'VE HAD THE RIGHT TO USE THIS AS A HOUSE.
THE PATTERNS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THERE AS A HOUSE.
SO I FEEL LIKE TO DENY THEM TO CONTINUE THE USE OF WHAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN, I MEAN, IS, I DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT.
THE OTHER THING IS, AGAIN, THIS PROPERTY IS HIGHLY ENCUMBERED.
UH, WHOEVER'S LIVING THERE IS NOW HAS TO BE A STEWARD OF EIGHT HERITAGE TREES ON THEIR PROPERTY.
UM, DOING ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IS GONNA BE DIFFICULT ANYWAY.
AND I THINK, UM, WITH THOSE TREES, IT COULD ACTUALLY MAKE FOR A VERY NICE HOME.
NOW, AS FAR AS FOR THESE THOUGHTS OF THAT THIS COULD BE X MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AGAIN, IT'S ONLY WHAT THE MARKET CAN BEAR.
AND I, AS OF RIGHT NOW, EVEN LOOKING AT WHERE THE MARKET'S AT, THIS IS SOMEBODY'S, YOU KNOW, GIANT DREAM RIGHT NOW, 3 MILLION BUCKS OUT.
ANYWAY, THAT'S WHY, UM, SUPPORT STAFF.
UM, SO SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION CHAIR, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
IT, IT, I GUESS IT'S JUST ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE OF REALLY HOW BAD OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS.
UM, IT FEELS RECKLESS TO PUT COMPATIBILITY ON MORE LAND IN THIS CITY AND TO JUST BROADEN IT EVEN WIDER, BUT IT REALLY HIGHLIGHTS OUR LACK OF ZONING TOOLS.
AND IT'S SHOCKING TO ME THAT WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING TYPE THAT WE COULD APPLY TO THIS PROPERTY AND TO COUNTLESS OTHER PROPERTIES IN THIS CITY THAT'S DESPERATE FOR HOUSING AND DESPERATE TO ALLOW FOR, YOU KNOW, MORE MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS TO BE ABLE TO OUTBID THE HIGHEST OF INCOME EARNERS.
WE ARE IN AN AFFORDABILITY CRISIS, BUT EVERY DAY WE FAIL TO ACT.
WE PRETEND LIKE WE'RE NOT, AND I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE AREN'T MOVING THE NEEDLE ON LEGALIZING MORE FORMS OF HOUSING IN THE CITY.
COMMISSIONERS, SPEAK IN FAVOR.
SPEAKING AGAINST, ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD, TAKE, UH, VOTES.
SO THE, THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DESIRE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHANE TO SUPPORT, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UH, THOSE IN THE DIAS IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
UM, LET'S GO AND COUNT THOSE, UH, VIRTUALLY THOSE IN FAVOR.
SHOW ME YOUR GREEN CARDS, PLEASE.
[00:40:03]
ALL RIGHT, THAT'S TWO.THOSE ON THE DIAS, UH, AGAINST, ALL RIGHT, THOSE, UH, VIRTUALLY THAT ARE AGAINST THIS MOTION.
OKAY, SO THAT MOTION, IF I GET MY NUMBERS RIGHT, THAT FAILS 6 41, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
I, I, I, SO I'LL SPEAK TO IT LATER.
I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS TO OUR NEXT MEETING.
YOU HAVE A SECOND, SECOND TO POSTPONE, UH, SEE.
COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, I'M GONNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER ZA.
SO I'M NOT SURE IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE THEIR VOTES FOR THIS, BUT I THINK, I JUST WANNA SAY, I THINK SOME OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS PRETTY, THE ISSUES AROUND COMPATIBILITY OR OTHER THINGS, I THINK THOSE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES AND I THINK WE'VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO CONSIDER THIS, GO BACK TO TALK TO THEIR CLIENT AND SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS.
SO MY HOPE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, BY, BY, RATHER THAN JUST MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONER HOLDING IT DOWN, IF WE ACTUALLY POSTPONE IT, WE CAN RESOLVE SOME OF THOSE ISSUES.
IT IS ASKING A LOT OF A PROPERTY OWNER TO SOMEHOW FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY WHEN THEY HAVE THAT MANY LIMITATIONS ON THEIR SIDE WITH COMPATIBILITY FROM THEIR JOINING PROPERTY ON ONE SIDE, ACTUALLY, UH, COMPATIBLE FROM THE OTHER SIDE AS WELL.
AND THEN NOT TO MENTION THE HERITAGE TREES ON IT, IT IS KIND OF A HARD PLACE TO BE.
AND I AGREE WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS SAYING AROUND THEY ARE LIMITATIONS WITH OUR CODE, WHICH MAKE THESE THINGS VERY HARD, BUT I'M NOT SURE I CAN PENALIZE AN APPLICANT FOR US HAVING ISSUES WITH OUR CODE.
MY HOPE WOULD BE THAT IF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS CAN SUPPORT THIS, WE CAN BRING IT BACK NEXT TIME AND RESOLVE SOME OF THOSE ISSUES.
ANY COMMISSIONERS, UH, SPEAKING AGAINST POSTPONEMENT? ANY SPEAKING? OH, VICE YOUR HIPPLE, YOU WANNA SPEAK AGAINST THIS MOTION? YEAH, I, UM, I RESPECT MR. AAR'S MOTION IN TRYING TO WORK THROUGH A COMPROMISE, BUT I, THE LISTING ON, ON ZILLOW IS, IT SAYS BUILD YOUR OWN FAMILY COMPOUND AN INSANE AIRBNB OR CUSTOM BUILD OF THE FRONT AND OR BACK HOUSE.
AND I, I JUST DON'T SEE, EVEN IF THE COMPATIBILITY WAS, WAS, UM, RESOLVED, UM, WHERE IT DIDN'T AFFECT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH DOWN ZONING A PROPERTY.
I, I JUST CAN'T BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT, EVEN IF IT IS, EVEN IF WE POSTPONE FOR TWO WEEKS.
SO THAT I'LL BE VOTING NO ON THIS.
SPEAK AGAINST, OH, COMMISSIONER, SHE, I'M SORRY.
SO, UM, I THINK COMMISSIONERS ZA YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I THINK THE CONSIDERATION WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT COMMISSIONER THOMPSON WAS CON UH, CONCERNED ABOUT THE COMPATIBILITY.
I MEAN, IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE GRAPPLED WITH ALL THE TIME, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE RESIDENCES THAT ARE TRIGGERING COMPATIBILITY SO CLOSE TO CERTAIN CORRIDORS OR EVEN, UM, CERTAIN, YOU KNOW, CITY CENTERS, CERTAIN, CERTAIN THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT IF WE HAD A BETTER CODE, THEN WE CAN STILL ALLOW THIS TO EXIST AND STILL NOT HINDER THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WANTS TO BE THERE.
SO IF THERE IS POTENTIALLY A WAY THAT WE COULD CONSIDER ALLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT TO CONTINUE, BECAUSE I MEAN, THIS IS DISRUPTED TO THE PATTERN THAT WANTS TO BE THERE RIGHT NOW.
IF THERE'S A WAY TO ALLOW THE PATTERN A DEVELOPMENT CONTINUE WITH WHAT'S EXISTING TO ZONING IS THERE, THEN I'D BE WILLING TO LISTEN.
YOU KNOW, I, I THINK, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD.
THEN EVERYBODY CAN GET WHAT THEY WANT.
SO, UM, I'D BE SUPPORTIVE ON THIS.
OKAY, COMMISSIONER TO SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION TO POSTPONE COMMISSION.
OH, COMMISSIONER MS. TELLER, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE, UM, THE AERIAL AND THE ZONING, AND I WISH WE COULD PULL THAT BACK UP, IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WERE OTHER PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET.
THERE ARE ALREADY SF THREE AND WE WERE GONNA ALREADY HIT COMPATIBILITY BASED ON THOSE PROPERTIES AND NOT NECESSARILY THE ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY FOR ANY OF THE, UM, YOU KNOW, WHERE, WHERE WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE DENSITY THAT'S ALREADY GONNA KICK IN.
SO TO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S POINT, THERE HAS TO BE SOME LARGER CHANGE THAT ALLOWS US TO BRING IN THE INFILL WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE.
UM, AS FAR AS THE STR STUFF, I'M VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THE FOLKS THAT ARE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND AGAIN, THAT SPEAKS TO ANOTHER THING THAT
[00:45:01]
NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AT A COUNCIL LEVEL BECAUSE THE PROCESS FOR STR IS, UM, WICKEDLY NOT REGULATED AND IN FAVOR OF COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY AND NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED PLACES TO LIVE.BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE ENTIRELY.
SO I'M NOT SURE THAT POSTPONING DOES IT, AND I FEEL THAT THAT'S KIND OF, I APPRECIATE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT I RATHER SEE US, I'D RATHER BRING THE MOTION FORWARD AGAIN AND LET IT GO BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THE COMPATIBILITY THERE.
YOU'RE NOT GETTING OUT OF IT WITH THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE ALREADY THAT CLOSE IN PROXIMITY.
WOULD THAT BE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION OR NO? YOU, YOU WERE AT THE POINT, UH, YOU COULD MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
SO I'LL I'LL PUT IT OUT THERE FOR CONSIDERATION BECAUSE OF THAT FACT THAT YOU'RE ALREADY, THAT NOTHING WE DO ON THIS PROPERTY IS GONNA TRIGGER THE COMPAT IS GONNA FIX THAT COMPATIBILITY ISSUE, THEN I WOULD PUT BACK ON THE TABLE FOR THE OTHER FOLKS TO CONSIDER TO LET THE APPLICANT HAVE WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR ON THE SF THREE.
BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY ALONE ISN'T TRIGGERING IT.
THE ONE ACROSS THE STREET ALREADY IS, OKAY.
WAIT, I THOUGHT, UM, WE ALREADY VOTED THAT DOWN.
WE, WE DID NOT,
SORRY, I DON'T HAVE A DIFFERENT MOTION THEN.
SOMEBODY SMARTER THAN ME HAS TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT MOTION.
WE ONLY GOT SIX VOTES ON THAT ONE.
UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON NOT SPEAKING AGAINST FOUR, FOUR POSTPONEMENT.
OKAY, SO I'M, I'M, I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONERS ARE DOING THIS.
UM, AND I LIKE THE IDEA OF POSTPONING IF, IF NOTHING ELSE, THEN JUST TO LEARN FROM THIS PROCESS AND WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH.
UM, IT SEEMS TO ME TWO AMAZING THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN WITH COMPATIBILITY.
ONE, AN EASY WAY FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO DROP COMPATIBILITY ON THEIR PROPERTY FROM AFFECTING OTHERS THAT WOULD BE A POWER FOR THEM AND SOMETHING WE DON'T ALLOW TO EASILY DO.
AND SO I'D LIKE, I'M EXCITED TO SEE WHAT COMES BACK TO US.
AND THEN TWO, WE STILL SAY HOUSING CAN BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH HOUSING AND IT'D BE AMAZING IF WE DIDN'T SAY THAT.
SO THAT WON'T HAPPEN WITH THIS CASE, BUT TWO THINGS TO CONSIDER, BUT I'M EXCITED TO SEE THIS COME BACK AND LEARN FROM IT.
ALL RIGHT, WE GOT ONE MORE SPOT FOR ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THIS COMMENT,
SO THIS IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DESAR, SECTIONED BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER TO POSTPONE THIS CASE TO OUR NEXT EXPLAINING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 25TH.
SO LET'S GO THOSE ON THE DIAS FIRST IN FAVOR OF POSTPONEMENT.
UH, THAT'S FOUR THOSE, UH, ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR OF POSTPONEMENT.
ALL RIGHT, THAT'S THREE THOSE AGAINST THIS MOTION.
UH, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND ON THE DIAS AND ON THE SCREEN IT'S GIMME ONE MOMENT.
AND THOSE THAT ARE ABSTAINING FROM THIS ITEM.
SO THAT, UH, LEMME GET MY, THAT 7 3 1.
THIS'LL BRING BACK TO US ON THE 25TH OF OCTOBER.
IT'S GONNA MOVE TO OUR NEXT CASE.
[19. Historic zoning: C14H-2022-0073 - Westgate Tower; District 9]
WE HAVE, UM, I BELIEVE, UH, ITEM 19, THE HISTORIC ZONING CASE.FIRST, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, CALLEN CONTRERA HOUSING AND PLANNING.
UH, THANK Y'ALL FOR REVISITING THIS CASE WITH US TONIGHT.
ITEM 19 C 14 H 20 22 0 0 7 3 IS AN OWNER INITIATED HISTORIC ZONING CASE AT 1122 COLORADO.
IT'S COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION A NUMBER OF TIMES SINCE AUGUST.
SO I'LL JUST GIVE A BRIEF RECAP.
UM, STAFF AND HISTORICALLY LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS BACK IN 2012 AND TODAY ARE TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BASED ON THE BUILDING'S QUALIFICATIONS FOR DESIGNATION UNDER THE CRITERIA FOR ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS, AS WELL AS FOR ITS INDIVIDUAL LISTING AND THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE SECTION 25 2 3 52 A THREE A.
UH, WE DO HAVE RESPONSES FOR SOME OF THE COMMISSION INQUIRIES.
FROM SEPTEMBER, UH, STAFF REACHED OUT TO TCAD AND THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
WE MET WITH APPRAISAL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES TO SEE IF THEY COULD PROVIDE, UH, THE TAX EXEMPTION ESTIMATES FOR THE WESTGATE AND THE PROGRAM AS A WHOLE.
UM, THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO PROVIDE ALL OF THE CALCULATIONS TO US, UH, WHICH INCLUDES THE CAPPED HOMESTEAD CALCULATIONS.
UH, BUT WE DO HAVE IS IN YOUR BACKUP.
STEPH ALSO REACHED OUT TO LAW DEPARTMENT REGARDING, UM, AN INQUIRY ABOUT ALTERNATIVES TO, UH, ZONING THE ENTIRE BUILDING HISTORIC.
UM, THE RESPONSE WAS, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT CODE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR REZONING PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY, UH, TO CIRCUMVENT THE TAX EXEMPTION AND THAT THE CITY CANNOT PREVENT A PROPERTY OWNER FROM APPLYING TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTERED PROGRAM.
[00:50:01]
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION ALSO THAT THE UPCOMING EQUITY BASED PRESERVATION PLAN WILL ADDRESS THE EXEMPTION PROGRAM IN OTHER INCENTIVES, UM, INTENSIVE OUTREACH IN A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, AS IN THE WORKS GONNA START THIS WINTER AND, UH, TRAVEL INTO 2023.SO PLEASE KEEP AN EYE OUT, UH, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THE DRAFT PLAN.
UM, AND THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF PRESENTATION, UM, AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, MR. BRIAN EVANS.
MR. EVANS, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES COMMISSIONERS.
THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU AGAIN.
AT OUR AUGUST MEETING, I WAS ABLE TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE WONDERFUL WORK THAT THE WESTGATE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN FIVE DECADES.
WE'VE BEEN TAKING METICULOUS CARE TO MAINTAIN THIS HISTORIC STRUCTURE IN GETTING TO SPEAK WITH YOU.
LAST TIME I CAME AWAY WITH A SHARED SENSE OF PURPOSE THAT PRESERVING THIS LANDMARK IS IMPORTANT AND THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO ENSURE IT'S CONTINUED PRESERVATION.
WITH YOUR HELP, WE WILL ENSURE THAT THIS HAPPENS.
HOWEVER, I FEEL AS THOUGH WE HAVE GOTTEN SIDETRACKED WITHOUT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM TCAT.
I PRODUCED A COST ESTIMATE FOR THE COMMISSION AND THAT BECAME ALMOST THE SOLE FOCUS OF THE CONVERSATION.
RESPECTFULLY, THE CONVERSATION NEEDS TO BE ON WHETHER WESTGATE MEETS THE CRITERIA OF THE PROGRAM, AND THAT IS A RESOUNDING YES, WHICH I HAVE CONFIRMED WITH CITY STAFF.
WE HAVE TWO OTHER HISTORICAL DESIGNATIONS, IMMACULATE ARCHITECTURAL MAINTENANCE, HISTORICAL PROMINENCE, AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE.
TODAY, I MUST RESPECTFULLY AS POSSIBLE PUSH BACK AGAINST THE COMMISSION.
PLEASE TELL ME WHICH PART OF THE PROGRAM W WESTGATE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH, RATHER, I WAS SURPRISED AT OUR LAST MEETING TO HEAR THAT THE WESTGATE NEEDS TO WORK WITH CITY ATTORNEYS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO TAKE ON ALL THE HURDLES, ADDITIONAL PERMITTING, APPROVALS, INSPECTIONS, AND WORK THAT WILL COST THE WESTGATE AND TIME AND MONEY FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF NOT RECEIVING THE BENEFITS OF THE PROGRAM FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO PRECEDENCE.
WE ARE HERE TO ASK FOR YOUR, WE ARE NOT HERE TO ASK FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT.
IN FACT, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
WE ASK YOU TO TREAT US AS THE OVERQUALIFIED APPLICANT THAT WE ARE.
I DID NOT HEAR ANYONE LAST MEETING SAY THAT THE WESTGATE SHOULD BE ANY OTHER STRUCTURE OTHER THAN WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS.
THERE IS NO PUSH FROM THE CITY TO MAKE THE BUILDING TALLER OR INTO A UNIVERSITY OR DAYCARE OR SOME OTHER USE.
I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE WHAT I'M ASKING FOR THE ZONING COMMISSION IS TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE BUILDING OR THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE BUILDING ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS WHICH WE FAR EXCEED.
AND IF THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE BETTER SERVED, IF THIS BUILDING WAS USED AS ANOTHER STRUCTURE.
REASON OF WHICH I'VE HEARD NO MENTION AS THERE'S BEEN NO MENTION OF AN FROM THE CITY ABOUT REDEVELOPMENT, I MUST ASSUME THAT THIS IS NOT BEING CONTESTED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ON WESTGATE'S ELIGIBILITY.
I MUST ASSUME THAT THIS IS NOT BEING CONTESTED.
I MUST ALSO ASSUME THAT IT IS AN UNCONTESTED BECAUSE OF THE UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF, THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION, AND NOW HAVING PASTOR REVIEW BY CITY LEGAL.
WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT, RATHER EQUAL TREATMENT.
THE PROGRAM HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE THE 1970S AND WAS REDESIGNED AS RECENTLY AS 2012.
IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THE PROGRAM, THEN BY ALL MEANS ADDRESS THAT ISSUE WITH THE PROGRAM.
BUT DON'T PENALIZE THE APPLICANT FOR ISSUES WITH THE PROGRAM BECAUSE WE ARE NOT HERE TO CHANGE CITY CODE THE TO CHANGE CITY CODE THIS EVENING.
AND I HAVE NOT HEARD MENTION OF ANY CRITERIA THAT ARE NOT MET BY WESTGATE.
WE WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE YOUR VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, BUT I WOULD CHALLENGE ANY DISSENTING VOTES TO SAY WHAT CRITERIA ARE UNMET TONIGHT.
YOU'LL ALSO GET TO HEAR FROM SOME OF THOSE THAT CALL WESTGATE HOME AND WHAT IMPORTANCE THIS HISTORIC STRUCTURE HAS PLAYED IN THEIR LIVES.
THANK YOU ALL AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR HELPING US TO PROTECT THIS TRULY WONDERFUL AND UNIQUE OLD AUSTIN STRUCTURE.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MS. MARIE WILTZ, FOLLOWED BY RICHARD LYONS.
MISS WILTZ, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
THE WESTGATE IS A REAL GEM OF OLD AUSTIN THAT HOLDS SO MUCH HISTORY.
HAVING GROWN UP IN TEXAS, ITS HISTORICAL ROOTS IS ONE OF THE REASONS I BOUGHT IN THE BUILDING VERSUS DOWNTOWN, MORE LIKE ON SECOND STREET, TO LIVE IN ONE OF THOSE NEWER BUILDINGS THAT TRULY FEELS MORE LIKE NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA RATHER THAN TEXAS.
UM, AND IN FACT, I'M, I LOVE IT SO MUCH.
I LOVE THE HISTORY THAT WHEN YOU'RE WALKING THROUGH THE BUILDING, YOU CAN LITERALLY FEEL HISTORY IN YOUR BONES.
SO MUCH TO THE DEGREE THAT THE UNIT I ACTUALLY BOUGHT IS AN UN IT'S ESSENTIALLY UNTOUCHED.
IT'S BEEN REPAIRED OVER THE YEARS, BUT IT REALLY WAS UN IS UNTOUCHED.
SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE AN EIGHTIES GEM.
AND I CAN'T, I, I LOVE THE HISTORY SO MUCH.
I CAN'T BRING MYSELF TO EVEN THINK ABOUT RENOVATING IT AS MUCH AS LIKE AN EIGHTIES KITCHEN.
THE SIZE OF IT DRIVES ME A LITTLE BIT
[00:55:01]
CRAZY, BUT I I, I STILL CAN'T RENOVATE IT.UM, SO THE WESTGATE BECOMES EVEN MORE SPECIAL AS THE CITY EVOLVES AND UNLIKE EVERYTHING NEW, YOU CAN'T JUST REPLICATE THE WESTGATE.
AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE HISTORICAL ROOTS THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, OLDER BUILDINGS OBVIOUSLY COST SO MUCH TO MAINTAIN, AND QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S SAD TO SEE AUSTIN'S HISTORY AND ROOTS ERASED WHEN OLDER BUILDINGS HAVE TO BE TAKEN DOWN.
WE NEED TO PRESERVE THE WESTGATE SO THAT ALL OF AUSTIN CAN ENJOY THIS MID-CENTURY MODERN STRUCTURE AND LEARN ABOUT ITS HISTORY AND REALLY OUR STATE'S HISTORY.
I ASK THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVE OUR APPLICATION BASED ON THE MERITS OF THE BUILDING AND ALL THE OTHER CRITERIA WE MEET SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO PRESERVE AND TREASURE A PIECE OF AUSTIN HISTORY.
KEEP AUSTIN WEIRD AND THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO CALL IT HOME.
WHEN I'LL HEAR FOR MR. RICHARD LYONS, FOLLOWED BY DOUGLAS MOSS.
I'M A RESIDENT OF THE WESTGATE BUILDING AND I FEEL VERY FORTUNATE TO LIVE IN SUCH A, A FINE STRUCTURE AND TO LIVE IN SUCH A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD.
I ENJOY WAKING UP AND LOOKING AT THE CAPITAL AND WALKING BY THE GOERS MANSION AND THE OTHER HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN THE AREA.
I REALLY CAN EXPAND ON WHAT THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS HAVE STATED, BUT I DO ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE TO APPROVE THE ZONING AS HISTORIC BECAUSE THE BUILDING QUALIFIES.
YOU HAVE OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE MOSTLY WITH THE PROGRAM AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU THROUGH COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OR OTHER, TO OTHER TOOLS TO EVALUATE THE PROGRAM.
BUT, YOU KNOW, DON'T DISADVANTAGE THE OWNERS OF THE WESTGATE WHY, WHY YOU DECIDE WHAT TO DO.
AGAIN, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE TO APPROVE THE HISTORIC ZONING FOR THIS VERY HISTORIC BUILDING.
YOU KNOW, FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION, THE AUSTIN HISTORIC COMMISSION AND THE PARK SERVICE, WHO HAVE ALL YOU KNOW, SAID THIS IS A HISTORIC PLACE.
IT NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED AND THE OWNERS, YOU KNOW, BEAR THE BURDEN OF MAINTAINING THIS BUILDING.
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH AND APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
WILL NOW HEAR FROM MR. DOUGLAS MOSS.
MR. MOSS, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
MY, UH, ED MY HOME IN THE WESTGATE ABOUT TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO, AND IT'S REALLY, UH, QUITE AN AMAZING COMMUNITY OF RESIDENTS.
UH, ONE OF THE UNIQUE COMPONENTS ABOUT OUR BUILDING THAT VERY FEW PEOPLE KNOW IS THAT THE APARTMENTS ARE VERY MODEST.
THERE ARE OVER 10, OR THERE ARE 10 APARTMENTS ON EVERY FLOOR OF THE BUILDING.
THEY RANGE ANYWHERE FROM 350 SQUARE FEET TO 1100 SQUARE FEET.
UM, AND I'M AN ARCHITECT AND I WORK IN DOWNTOWN AUSTIN.
I GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO WALK TO WORK EVERY DAY.
IN FACT, I ONLY, UH, GET TO DRIVE MY CAR ABOUT ONCE A WEEK BECAUSE OF THE URBAN LIFESTYLE THAT I'M ABLE TO LIVE BY BEING AS A RESIDENT IN THE, IN THE WESTGATE.
I HAVE A GREAT AFFINITY OF BUILDINGS THAT WERE BUILT IN THE SIXTIES, UH, NOT ONLY BECAUSE THEY'RE, UH, CONSIDERED HISTORIC, BUT THEY REPRESENT AN EXTRAORDINARY PERIOD IN OUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY.
UH, THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF THE WESTGATE, UH, AND ITS PLACE IN THE HISTORY OF AUSTIN, IN THE HISTORY OF TEXAS AND IN THE HISTORY OF THE CAPITAL VIEW QUARTERS THAT IT HELPED CREATE.
AND THE AMAZING STORY BEHIND THAT, IN MY ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE, AND I DO A LOT OF RESTORATION WORK, I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN SO MANY PROJECTS WHERE BUILDING OWNERS WERE FIGHTING AGAINST HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO MAINTAIN THE BUILDINGS, THEY DIDN'T WANT TO MAINTAIN THE ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THEIR BUILDINGS.
AND IT'S, AS YOU WELL KNOW, QUITE A RARITY TO BE ABLE TO MAIN, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A BUILDING TENANTS, TO HAVE THE MANAGEMENT, TO HAVE THE OWNERSHIP THAT IS INTERESTED AND INVOLVED IN MAINTAINING THE HISTORIC BUILDING AND, UH, THE IMPORTANCE OF THOSE HISTORIC BUILDINGS.
LIKE WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE IN THE WESTGATE.
WE SPEND AN ENORMOUS EFFORT AND TIME ON THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE FOR THE WESTGATE AS WELL.
AND WE SPEND AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TIME AND ENERGY AND MONEY
[01:00:01]
TRYING TO MAINTAIN THIS HISTORIC BUILDING.I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE IN SUPPORT OF DESIGNATING THE WESTGATE, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND YOUR ENERGY THIS EVENING.
WHEN I'LL HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION, MR. RICHARD HARDEN.
MR. HARDEN, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
I'VE HEARD A COUPLE OF THINGS FROM THIS DIAS THIS EVENING.
ONE THAT THE OWNERS HAVE FILED AN APPLICATION AND SUPPORT THIS ZONING.
I'VE HEARD IT FROM STAFF AND I'VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT AND SOME OF THESE CONDO OWNERS.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS I'VE BEEN THROUGH ALL THE BACKUP HUNDREDS OF PAGES AND YOU'VE SEEN THE LETTER FROM MY ATTORNEY.
I DON'T FIND WHERE A SINGLE OWNER HAS SIGNED AN APPLICATION TO ZONE THEIR PROPERTY.
THERE'S 102 OWNERS, THE APPLICATION IS INACCURATE, IT'S INCOMPLETE, IT IS SIGNED BY AN A, AN AGENT WHO REPRESENTS AND WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
THE OWNER'S SIGNATURES ARE REQUIRED ON EACH APPLICATION FOR ZONING OF THE 102 OWNERS THAT EACH, EACH ONE HAS A DEED AND ON THEIR DEED EACH HAS A PERCENTAGE OF COMMON AREA.
SO THEY OWN THE CONDO AND A PERCENTAGE OF COMMON AREA ON THEIR DEED.
THE ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET FALSELY SAYS THAT PRESENT OWNERS WESTGATE CONDOM, MANY MOST ASSOCIATION IS THE OWNER.
THERE'S NO DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THE OWNERS OF THE 102 INDIVIDUAL PARCELS ARE APPLYING FOR ZONING.
EACH OWNER IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROVIDED A STATEMENT IS REQUIRED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE DESCRIBING THE IMPACT OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION ON THE OWNER'S PROPERTY.
AND THIS, THIS NOTICE IS SUPPOSED TO BE SENT 15 DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING.
THAT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO DENY THE APPLICATION.
WE HAVE AN APPLICATION THAT HAS NON-COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND THE, THE REASON FOR THAT IS THE CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO DESIGNATE A COMMISSION WITH SOLE AUTHORITY.
THAT WAS A STATE LAW PASSED IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
I CAN CITE IT FOR YOU, BUT IT'S, IT'S IN MY, IT'S IN MY MATERIAL I'VE SENT YOU.
THERE'S NO TAX CERTIFICATES THAT HAVE BEEN SENT OR FILED IN THE BACK FOR THE 102 OWNERS.
SO WE FOUND TWO WITH, AND WE ONLY LOOKED THROUGH A HALF A DOZEN OF THESE, OF THESE, UH, TAX, UM, PAYMENTS WITH THE UM, TRAVIS COUNTY, UH, TAX COLLECTOR THAT ARE NOT CURRENT, THAT'S NOT COMPLIANT WITH A APPLICATION THAT MEETS THE TEST OF BEING HEARD BY A COMMISSION FOR ZONING.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR TAXES FULLY PAID.
SO THE, THE OWNERS OF THE WESTGATE TOWER HAVE NOT SIGNED THE APPLICATION.
THEY HAVE NOT AUTHORIZED THIS AGENT.
THERE'S NO DEEDS FOR THESE 102 OWNERS.
THERE'S A DEED FOR THE LAND, ONLY THE LAND.
SO WHY IS THIS APPLICATION, WHICH IS EXPECTING A MASSIVE TAX BREAK BEING PROCESSED IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW AND CONTRARY TO NORMAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY.
THE LANDMARK COMMISSION SHOULD NOT HAVE APPROVED THIS APPLICATION.
AND YOU KNOW, I'M WONDERING IF I WERE ON THAT COMMISSION AND I LOOKED AT THIS APPLICATION, I WOULD HAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE BUILDING THE LAND, THE COMMON AREA WAS WHAT WAS BEING MADE, UH, BEING ASKED FOR HISTORIC ZONING, NOT EACH INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WAS CONFUSED BY THE FACT THAT THE APPLICATION IS FLAWED OR NOT.
WE'VE NOT HEARD ANY ARGUMENTS FROM EITHER THE APPLICANT OR ANY OF THESE HIGH RISE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS EXPLAINING THE PUBLIC BENEFIT OF GIVING THEM OVER $600,000 IN TAX RELIEF AS OPPOSED TO THE ENTITIES THEY'RE TAKING THAT FROM, WHICH IS OUR SCHOOL KIDS, A I S D, CENTRAL HEALTH, OUR, OUR HEALTH, UH, OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TRAVIS COUNTY ITSELF, CITY OF AUSTIN.
WE HAVE PRESSING NEEDS AND SOME OF YOU HAVE SPOKEN TO
[01:05:01]
THOSE NEEDS.HOMELESS AFFORDABILITY, YOU'RE TAKING MONEY AND GIVING IT TO A HIGH RISE.
IF YOU ZONE THE CONDOMINIUMS AS WELL, INSTEAD OF JUST THE COMMON AREA, YOU HAVE THE POWER TO RECOMMEND A HISTORIC ZONING IN A HISTORIC TAX EXEMPTION ONLY FOR THE COMMON AREA, WHICH IS THE LAND, THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING AND ALL THE COMMON AREA PARTS OF IT.
AND THAT'S AN EASY CALCULATION FOR TCA TO MAKE CUZ IT'S ON EACH DEED THEY'VE ALREADY TOLD US THEY CAN DO IT.
TO INCLUDE THE INDIVIDUAL CONDOS IN A TAX EXEMPTION SERVES ABSOLUTELY NO PUBLIC BENEFIT.
AND IT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT DOESN'T SERVE ANY PRESERVATION PURPOSE.
SO I AGREE WITH THE CAP APPLICANT.
I'M NOT HERE TO OPPOSE THE ZONING OF THE COMMON AREA OR THE LAND OF THE BUILDING.
IT'S THE INDIVIDUAL CONDOS THAT HAVE NO PUBLIC PURPOSE.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
AFTER OUR LAST MEETING, MR. HARDEN'S CONCERNS WERE SENT TO CITY LEGAL.
I PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATIONS TO LEGAL AND WE WERE APPROVED TO PROCEED RESPECTFULLY TO MR. HARDEN.
I CAN SAY THAT HE CAN SAY THAT WE DO NOT QUALIFY OR WE NOT HAVE NOT MET THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PROGRAM.
BUT THAT IS JUST SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
OR CITY LEGAL WOULD NOT ALLOW US TO BE HERE TODAY.
STAFF HAS APPROVED OUR APPLICATION BEFORE WE EVER SUBMITTED IT, AND THE HISTORIC ZONING COMMISSION HAVE APPROVED IT UNANIMOUSLY AS WELL.
THE ISSUES AND PROBLEMS THAT I'VE HEARD RAISED TONIGHT ARE ISSUES AND PROBLEMS THAT COMMISSIONERS AND OTHERS HAVE WITH THE PROGRAM THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE IN VARIOUS FORMS SINCE THE 1970S.
THERE ARE NOT ISSUES WITH THE WESTGATE.
THERE ARE NO ISSUES OR PROBLEMS WITH THE WESTGATE'S QUALIFICATIONS, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO DETERMINE.
I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I'VE CONFIRMED IT WITH CITY STAFF.
I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT WE ARE ONE OF THE MORE QUALIFIED CANDIDATES.
YOU HAVE OTHER APPLICANTS THAT DO NOT WANT THIS DESIGNATION, HAVING IT THRUST UPON THEM.
MEANWHILE, YOU HAVE AN APPLICANT BEFORE YOU THAT HAS MET AND EXCEEDS THE CRITERIA AND IS SEEKING IT OUT.
IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THE PROGRAM, THEN BY ALL MEANS ADDRESS THE ISSUE WITH THE PROGRAM.
BUT WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO DETERMINE IF WESTGATE OR ANY OTHER QUALIFIED APPLICANT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF A PROGRAM WITH THE UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION, THE SUPPORT OF CITY STAFF, THE SUPPORT OF OUR OWNERS, THE CONFIRMATION FROM STAFF THAT ALL NECESSARY CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET, AND HAVING PASSED A REVIEW BY CITY LEGAL, WE HAVE OFFICIALLY DOTTED EVERY I AND CROSSED EVERY T.
NOW, WE KINDLY ASK THAT YOU VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
I WOULD NOW LIKE TO READ AN EXCERPT FROM A LETTER FROM ONE OF OUR OWNERS THAT WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND A NIGHT.
I WAS HURT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PREVIOUS COMMENTS THAT SEEMED TO SUGGEST THAT GRANTING US HISTORIC DES DESIGNATION SHOULD NOT BE OFFERED UNLESS THE BUILDING IS UNDER IMMEDIATE THREAT OF REDEVELOPMENT.
ISN'T THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPOSED TO BE STICKING UP FOR OLD AUSTIN? THOSE OF US WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE OUR HOMES? STREETE DEVELOPMENT, THE WESTGATE IS A BUILDING THAT IS COMPRISED OF OWNERS FROM ALL ECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS WHO HAVE FORMED A COMMUNITY IN THE BUILDING WITH A COMMON PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING ITS HISTORIC INTEGRITY AND ACCURACY.
IF WE DO NOT GET HISTORIC ZONING, I FEAR THAT ONE DAY SOON, THIS ADMIRED BUILDING WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO SELL TO A DEVELOPER WHO WILL TURN IT INTO ANOTHER OVERPRICED GLASS BOX THAT CAN ONLY THE CITY AS ELITE CAN AFFORD.
I ASK THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION THINK ABOUT THE OWNERS WHO CHOSE TO LIVE AT THE WESTGATE BECAUSE IT'S WHAT THEY COULD AFFORD.
I ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THINK ABOUT THE OWNERS WHO HAVE DEDICATED THE TIME AND MONEY IN PRESERVING THE WESTGATE THUS FAR TO ENSURE WE KEEP THIS OLD PART OF AUSTIN STILL STANDING FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADMIRE.
I WE ASK THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE THAT WE MAY CONTINUE TO PRESERVE THIS AMAZING SITE.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE MY LAST MOMENTS TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR ALL THEIR WORK, PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE, AND FOR YOUR HELP WITH PROTECTING THIS TRULY UNIQUE OLD AUSTIN STRUCTURE.
THAT COULD CLOSE THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
SO IF KEN, WE'LL TRY TO KEEP THIS TO THE, UM, FIVE QUESTIONS, THREE MINUTES EACH.
HE WANTS TO MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, LET ME GET BACK TO THE ROOM HERE.
UM, WE HAVE A MOTION TO CODE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE THAT ON VIRTUAL.
UH, NOW LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX, START US OFF PLEASE.
UM, I CAN'T SEE IF STAFF IS UP THERE, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK MY QUESTION.
UM, WE'VE, WE'VE HEARD FROM A FEW DIFFERENT PEOPLE NOW ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF JUST, UH, ZONING THE COMMON AREAS AND THE EXTERIOR HISTORIC RATHER
[01:10:01]
THAN BASICALLY THE WHOLE PROPERTY.AND I'M JUST CURIOUS TO UNDERSTAND FROM STAFF, ONE, IS THAT POSSIBLE? TWO, IS THERE PRECEDENTS BEHIND THAT? UH, AND THREE, HOW, HOW WOULD, IF THIS COMMISSION WANTED TO DO THAT, HOW WOULD WE GO ABOUT DOING THAT? YES, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
UM, THIS IS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT STAFF BROUGHT UP WITH OUR CITY LEGAL.
UM, AND THEY, UM, PRETTY MUCH UNEQUIVOCALLY GAVE THE RESPONSE THAT THE CODE DOESN'T ALLOW FOR REZONING ONLY PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY, UM, IN, IN THAT SORT OF PIECEMEAL WAY, UM, INCLUDING COMMON AREAS ONLY.
UM, SO, UH, THAT WAS, THAT WAS PRETTY CLEAR.
UM, WE ALSO HEARD THAT THE CITY CAN'T PREVENT, UM, INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS FOR, FROM APPLYING TO THE COUNTY, UM, FOR THE TAX ABATEMENT AS PART OF THAT, UM, SERIES OF QUESTIONS.
UM, AND THEN I'M, I'M WILLING TO SPEND THE REST OF MY TIME DISCUSSING THE ACTUAL MERITS OF THIS CASE, WHICH IS HISTORIC NATURE OF THIS PROPERTY.
UM, CAN, CAN YOU, CAN YOU HIGHLIGHT ANY ASPECTS OF THIS PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT MEET OUR HISTORIC ZONING CRITERIA? UM, COMMISSIONER THIS, UM, PROPERTY MEETS THE REQUIRED TWO, UM, HISTORIC DESIGNATION CRITERIA AS WELL AS, UM, A THIRD, WHICH IS, UM, NOT WIDELY USED.
UM, THIS BUILDING WAS LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES IN 2010.
UM, AND, UM, THERE'S A SEPARATE PROVISION OTHER THAN THE REGULAR FIVE CRITERIA, UM, THAT ALSO STATES THAT CITY COUNCIL MAY DESIGNATE A HISTORIC LANDMARK IF IT RETAINS INTEGRITY IS OVER 50 YEARS OLD AND IS INDIVIDUALLY LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER.
UM, SO IT MEETS, UH, BOTH OF THOSE SETS OF CRITERIA.
AND CAN YOU, CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR US, DOES BEING LISTED IN THE NA NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, DOES THAT PREVENT THE OWNER FROM, FROM BASICALLY CHANGING THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY? UH, NO, COMMISSIONER.
UM, THE NATIONAL REGISTER IS A WONDERFUL HONORIFIC, UM, AND IT IS AN HONORIFIC ONLY.
UM, WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF, UH, REGULATORY POWER OVER THOSE, UH, PROPERTIES AS WE DO OVER PROPERTIES WITH, UH, CITY H ZONING.
SO, AS FAR AS YOU'RE AWARE, TOMORROW THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY THE OWNERS OF THE CONDO COULD DECIDE TO CLAD THIS BUILDING AND BLUE SHINY GLASS TO MATCH ALL THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN.
I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? THE, UH, THE BUZZER GOT ME.
WE'RE OUTTA TIME, SO LET'S TRY TO DON'T, UM, I THINK, YEAH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON.
UH, NEXT, COMMISSIONER WITH QUESTIONS.
UH, THIS QUESTION ALSO FOR STAFF.
UM, YOU STARTED TO, UH, I THINK TEASE US ABOUT, UH, SOME CHANGES THAT WERE COMING TO HOW, UH, UH, UH, THE FUNDS, I THINK IT START, I THINK YOU PROBABLY EQUITABLE PLAN.
CAN, CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THAT IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL? I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT, UH, FULLY FLESHED OUT, BUT, UM, COULD YOU PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT? UM, ABSOLUTELY.
COMMISSIONER, UM, I CAN GIVE A LITTLE BIT.
UH, WE HAVE A WONDERFUL PROJECT MANAGER WHO I CAN CONNECT YOU WITH AS WELL, UM, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED AFTER THIS HEARING.
BUT, UM, SINCE 2021, I GUESS THE BEGINNING OF 2021, UM, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE AND SOME OF OUR PARTNER, UH, DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH, UM, A WONDERFUL COMMUNITY, UM, ORGANIZATION, WORKING GROUP, UM, TO HOPEFULLY REVAMP OUR 1981 PRESERVATION PLAN.
UM, AND THIS PLAN IS GOING TO DIRECT THE FUTURE OF OUR PROGRAM WITH, UM, AN UNPRECEDENTED AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY INPUT, UM, IN THESE DECISIONS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A PROGRAM MOVING FORWARD THAT, UM, ADDRESSES EQUITY ISSUES, UM, THAT THE CURRENT PROGRAM, UM, DOESN'T, UH, SINCE IT'S 40 YEARS OLD NOW.
SO WILL THIS IMPACT HOW, UH, UH, FUNDS ARE DISTRIBUTED FROM THE CITY OR HOW TAX ABANDONMENTS COME FROM THE CITY OR THE COUNTY, UH, IN ORDER TO, UH, RESTORE OR SUPPORT, UH, RESTORATION OR PRESERVATION OF, UH, HISTORIC SITES? INCENTIVES ARE, UM, PART OF THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE'RE GONNA BE ASKING EVERYBODY
[01:15:01]
TO, UH, PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON, SO IT'S POSSIBLE.UH, SO AS OF NOW, THERE'S, UM, OH, SORRY.
UH, IF SUCH, IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT'S PUT INTO PLACE, WOULD IT BE PERSPECTIVE OR WOULD IT APPLY TO, UM, UH, TO ALL HISTORIC, ALL HISTORIC BUILDINGS? UM, I THINK THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE FEEDBACK THAT THEY RECEIVED ON WHAT KIND OF PARAMETERS WERE PUT IN PLACE, UH, FOR INDIVIDUAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. UM, WE REALLY CAN'T KNOW UNTIL WE GET PAST THE OUTREACH AND THE FEEDBACK PORTION.
UM, WHEN WE GET THOSE DRAFT COMMENTS, WE'LL KNOW WHAT DO YOU WHAT EXPECT A TIMELINE BEFORE THERE'S, UH, UH, UH, CODE AMENDMENT.
I BELIEVE OUR PUBLIC OUTREACH IS GOING TO BEGIN THIS WINTER.
UM, AND THERE WILL BE MORE OUTREACH AND FEEDBACK THROUGH 2023.
UM, I DON'T HAVE EXACT DATES FOR YOU, BUT, UM, AGAIN, I CAN CONNECT YOU WITH OUR PROJECT MANAGER WHO CAN LIKE, BEFORE THE END OF 2023.
IS THAT REALISTIC? DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER TO HIS QUESTION? I HOPE SO.
THANK YOU THAT, THAT WAS THE BUZZER COST SCHNEIDER.
UH, COMMISSIONER SHEA QUESTION FOR STAFF.
SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, CUZ WHAT I REMEMBER IS THAT WE, WE HAVE ZONED PORTIONS OF A PROPERTY BEFORE IS HISTORIC.
AND WHAT COMES TO MIND IS THERE'S A PROPERTY IN CLARKSVILLE, AND I THINK THE WALL AROUND WAS ZONED HISTORIC AND WHAT ENDED UP BEING BUILT THERE WAS A BUNCH OF DUPLEX CONDOS ALL AROUND IT.
SO IN THAT CASE THEN, SO IF THE PROPERTY'S HISTORIC DOES ALL THIS BRAND NEW STUFF THAT'S INSIDE GET THE TAX ABATEMENT WHEN ONLY THE WALL IS, IS HISTORIC, I MEAN, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST.
AND IN THIS CASE HERE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT THERE'S NOT A WAY TO, TO DO IT BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE, RIGHT? THEY CAN CHANGE WHATEVER THEY WANT WITHIN INSIDE THE WALLS.
AND THEY BUILT RIGHT OVER THERE ON, IN CLARKSVILLE BRAND NEW CONDOS, MULTIMILLION DOLLAR CONDOS, YET THE WALL, IT'S HISTORIC.
SO ARE ALL THOSE HOMEOWNERS IN THOSE CONDOS, BRAND NEW CONDOS GETTING TAX BREAKS BECAUSE IT'S GOT A HISTORIC DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY COMMISSIONER? I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT, BUT, UM, IN OUR DISCUSSION WITH TCAD, UH, IT'S MY IMPRESSION THAT THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO.
UM, THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT WILL LOOK AT THE BUILD DATE, THE IMPROVEMENT DATE, UM, AND THINGS LIKE ADDED SQUARE FOOTAGE AND DETERMINE WHICH PORTION OF THAT IS ACTUALLY ZONED HISTORIC, UM, IS ACTUALLY BUILT DURING THE HISTORIC PERIOD AND SHOULD ACTUALLY RECEIVE THE TAX EXEMPTION.
SO, AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IN THIS CASE HERE NOW, BECAUSE IF THIS IS KIND OF LIKE THAT AND IT'S INTERNAL AIRSPACE AND OUR HISTORIC CODE WAS THERE TO GOVERN THE SKIN, THE OUTSIDE, RIGHT? IT'S THE, IT'S A COMMUNITY BENEFIT OF WHAT WE ALL GET TO SEE.
AND IF I GO ON THE INSIDE AND I CHANGE MY STUDS, RIGHT? CAUSE I COULD CHANGE THE STUDS TO METAL STUDS, I COULD PUT IN GOLD PLATED SINKS, I COULD PUT AQUARIUMS, I COULD PUT A POOL IN THERE, I CAN INCREASE THE VALUE OF MY CONDO, TRIPLE WHATEVER, AND I GET THIS GREAT VALUATION AND THEN NOW I GET THE FULL TAX BREAK.
BUT THEN I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS LIKE, NO, THAT'S NOT THE CASE IN THIS OTHER CASE HERE.
TRAVIS COUNTY DESIGNATED THAT.
SO I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND AT THIS POINT THEN, I MEAN, WHY ISN'T THERE A MECHANISM TO LOOK AT THAT COMMON SPACE? IF, I GUESS WHAT YOU JUST TOLD ME IS THAT WE ARE DOING IT, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.
I CAN ASK LAW AGAIN FOR A MORE POINT BY POINT BREAKDOWN OF, UM, THE ORIGINAL ANSWER THAT WE GOT, IF THAT WOULD HELP.
YEAH, CUZ I, I GUESS IT JUST DOESN'T QUITE MAKE SENSE TO ME BECAUSE IF YOU KEEP INCREASING THE VALUE OF INTERNAL, WHETHER YOU TRIPLE THE NUMBER OF UNITS, ADD 20 DIFFERENT MORE KITCHENS IN BATH, YOU INCREASE THE VALUE, YET EVERYBODY'S STILL MAINTAINING EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF COMMON SPACE.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S A PART THAT I'M, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
AND THEN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, THE COMMUNITY TO BENEFIT IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S WHAT WE SEE, BUT THEN THE VALUATIONS BASED UPON ALL THESE THINGS THAT WE DON'T SEE.
AND SOMEHOW WE NEED TO, I GUESS, FIX ALL THAT.
AND WE'VE, FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE, SO WHY CAN'T WE DO IT AGAIN? I GUESS THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M I'M AT RIGHT NOW.
UM, ANYWAY, THAT'S MY QUESTION.
[01:20:01]
COMMISSIONER MO TALLER AND THEN COMMISSIONER ZA.I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANYBODY ON CITY STAFF WHO CAN ANSWER THIS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE, THE, THE APPRAISAL STUFF IS COMING FROM TCAD, NOT FROM THE CITY.
SO THE CITY CAN PUT THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY, WHETHER IT'S OWNER INITIATED OR HISTORIC COMMISSION INITIATED, HOWEVER THAT COMES.
AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY APPLY, AN OWNER WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR WHATEVER TAX CREDIT TCA'S GONNA GIVE, WHICH MEANS EACH INDIVIDUAL CONDO OWNER WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT.
THERE'S NOT PAYING TAXES, RIGHT? YOU OWN A CONDO, YOU'RE AN OWNER, YOU HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER, YOU PAY PROPERTY TAXES TO TCAD.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF ANYBODY ON STAFF CAN EXPLAIN THAT OR SUBSTANTIATE THAT.
I KNOW I HAVE AN AREA ON MY PROPERTY, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HAS SOME EASEMENT ISSUES.
I DON'T GET A TAX BREAK ON MY ENTIRE PROPERTY.
I GET A TAX BREAK ON THE 10% THAT'S UNUSABLE DUE TO AN EASEMENT.
SO DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM STAFF THAT CAN MAYBE EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER, THAT MIGHT ANSWER SOME OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT THESE TAX BREAK QUESTIONS THAT PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT? THE OPPOSITION? CAUSE IT'S RESEARCH.
IF WE DON'T HAVE STAFF, THEN I'D THROW IT OUT TO THE OPPOSITION AND SEE IF YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT IT.
I'LL GIVE EITHER ONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE ENLIGHTEN US.
SO STAFF DOESN'T HAVE AN ANSWER.
I'LL THROW IT TO THE OPPOSITION.
SO, CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS MORE A TCAT ISSUE THAN A DESIGNATION ISSUE, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING.
SO I'LL COMMISSIONER, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL.
SO I'LL LET OPPOSITION SPEAK TO WHAT THEY'VE LEARNED AND SHARE.
WELL, I'M NOT AN APPRAISER AND I'M NOT A TAX EXPERT, BUT THE WAY I THINK THINGS WORK, AS YOU HAVE TAXING ENTITIES THAT PARTICIPATE IN YOUR PROGRAM, CITY IS ONE OF THEM, COUNTY'S ONE OF THEM, ET CETERA.
THE APPRAISAL DISTRICTS IS TASKED WITH APPRAISING THE VALUE OF THE REAL ESTATE.
AND THEN THAT VALUATION GOES IS, IS TAXED BASED ON THE TAX RATE THAT'S ESTABLISHED BY THE TAXING ENTITIES.
SO YOU HAVE EVALUATION, YOU HAVE THESE VARIOUS TAX RATES, THEN YOU GET A TAX BILL.
THE TAX BILL IS SENT FROM THE TAXING OFFICE, THE TRAVIS TAXING OFFICE.
ON THESE, ON THE CONDOMINIUM, YOU HAVE AN OWNERSHIP OF LET'S SAY UNIT 1 0 1 WESTGATE CONDOS PLUS 5% OF THE COMMON AREA.
SO IF, IF YOU WERE GIVING A TAX BREAK TO THAT APPLICANT, THAT UNIT 1 0 1 OR 1 0 5 OR WHATEVER UNDER THE CURRENT, THE WAY THAT I THINK THE APPLICANT WANTS YOU TO HANDLE IT WOULD BE THAT THAT ENTIRE UNIT WOULD GET A TAX BREAK OF WHATEVER THE PROGRAM ALLOWED.
UM, WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS DOESN'T THAT GO TO TCA? DOESN'T TCAD HAVE TO APPLY IT? THEY APPLY FOR IT, BUT THEN TCAD MAKES THE DETERMINATION.
I I THINK THE CITY, UH, LANDMARK, UH, OFFICE, UH, HAS TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION.
BUT MAYBE I'M WRONG ABOUT THAT.
CITY STAFF MAYBE COULD ANSWER THAT.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
LET'S, IF YOU CAN ANSWER THAT LAST QUESTION.
DISCLOSES OUT THE CITY INSPECTS, UH, EACH LANDMARK PROPERTY TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE, UH, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DUTY TO PRESERVE AND REPAIR SECTION IN THE CODE.
UM, WE DO NOT REVIEW THE, UM, THE TCAD APPLICATIONS.
THAT IS SOLELY, UH, TCAS ARENA.
UH, COMMISSAR, THANK YOU CHAIR.
PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
SO DCA IS THE ONE WHO THAT APPRAISES IT.
DECAT IS THE ONE THAT ASSIGNS THAT IT IS HISTORIC OR MEETS CRITERIA.
DECAT IS THE ONE THAT COLLECTS THE TAXES AND THEN DISTRIBUTES THEM.
IS IT NOT TRUE THAT THIS IS A CITY OF PROGRAM? SO OUR CITY COUNCIL BY ACTION VOTED TO BE PART OF THIS PROGRAM BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT IS UNDER STATE LAW.
SO CLOSE COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY, UM, DECIDES IF A BUILDING MEET THE DESIGNATION CRITERIA.
WELL LET ME JUST CORRECT THIS.
SO THE PROGRAM THOUGH, FOR TAX EXEMPTION, THE CITY OPTED IN.
IS THAT NOT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
THE CITY AND THE HAVE A, SO BY OUR CITY COUNCIL'S ACTION THAT THAT IS INDEED POLICY, CORRECT? I'M SORRY.
SO BY OPTING IN AS A CITY INTO THIS PROGRAM, IT IS OUR CITY COUNCIL THAT HAS CREATED A POLICY THAT WE WILL BE OPTING INTO THIS STATE PROGRAM.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO IT IS INDEED A CITY POLICY, CORRECT? YES, WE ARE PARTNERSHIP.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY TO EVERYBODY THAT INDEED ALL DO TCA DOES THE APPRAISAL AND EVERYTHING.
IT IS A CITY COUNCIL VOTED ON PROGRAM UNDER STATE LAW UNDER SECTION 11 POINT 24 CALLED HISTORIC SITES.
UM, THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD IS A
[01:25:01]
FOLLOW UP FOR COMMISSIONER SHE WAS SAYING.SO WE HAVE DONE THAT IN THE PAST.
WE ALSO IN THE BAKER SCHOOL TALKED ABOUT EXEMPTING THE PARKING LOTS.
SO I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE HERE OF LIKE WE CAN'T DO LOBBY AND ELEVATOR, RIGHT? LIKE CUZ WE DON'T CONTROL THE BUILDING FORM IN SOME WAYS.
BUT IS IT NOT TRUE THAT WE CAN ZONE A, A SITE PARTIALLY HISTORIC OR ANYTHING ELSE? WE REGULARLY SPLIT LOTS AND SAY THE FRONT OF THE LOT WILL BE SF THREE, THE BACK OF THE LOT WILL BE YELLOW OR WHATEVER IT IS.
CAN WE SPLIT THE LOT ITSELF, NOT THE BUILDING? YES.
COMMISSIONER, I BELIEVE WE CAN.
SO THAT IS ACTUALLY INDEED A POSSIBILITY.
UM, AND THEN I JUST A FOLLOW UP TO WHAT COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER WAS SAYING.
SO IF I'M HEARING CORRECTLY THAT SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE'RE HAVING AROUND THE PROGRAM AND ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS, UM, INDEED THAT THAT IS WHAT IS BEING CONSIDERED UNDER OUR, UM, UH, HISTORIC PRESERVATION EQUITY PLAN.
AMONG, UH, LOTS OF OTHER THINGS, COMMISS.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS OF COURSE, YEAH, I KNOW IT'S A VERY LARGE PLAN AND I HAVE TO SAY I REALLY APPRECIATE STAFF'S EFFORT ON THAT.
IT IS A LONGER OVERDUE PROJECT AND THE PROCESS IN ENGAGING WITH THE COMMUNITY, IT'S BEEN AN AMAZING PROGRESS TO SEE THAT.
SO I JUST WANNA THANK YOU AND YOUR TEAM FOR YOUR WORK ON THAT.
UM, BUT TO COMMISSION SCHNEIDER'S QUESTION, DO WE HAVE ANY ROUGH IDEA ON WHEN WE MIGHT BE SEEING ADOPTION OF THAT PLAN BY OUR CITY COUNCIL? I CAN CHECK ON THE TIMELINE FOR YOU, COMMISSIONER.
UM, I'M NOT THE PROJECT MANAGER, BUT I DO KNOW THAT, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD, UM, AS BEST WE CAN AND, UH, GET AS MUCH GOOD FEEDBACK AS POSSIBLE FROM OUR COMMUNITY.
THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS THAT I'M RUNNING OUT OF TIME.
SO, REAL QUICK HERE, UM, DO WE HAVE, UH, LEGAL AVAILABLE? CAUSE I I'VE HEARD I I MIGHT OPEN THIS UP FOR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS CUZ I AM CONFUSED.
I THOUGHT WE HEARD AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS THAT LEGAL SAID WE COULD NOT PARTIALLY DESIGNATE AND NOW WE HEARD WE CAN, AND I MAYBE THE CONTEXT WAS DIFFERENT.
UH, BUT DO WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY, THE ATTORNEY THAT LOOKED AT THIS CASE? I, I WAS TOLD THEY'D BE AVAILABLE, SO I THINK IT'D BE GOOD TO HAVE THEM IN CHAIR.
WELL, I THINK WE'RE READING FOR LAW, IF I CAN JUST CLARIFY.
I THINK THE DISTINCTION IS WE CANNOT, UM, ZONE CERTAIN PIECES OF A STRUCTURE, RIGHT? SO I CANNOT DESIGNATE THE LOBBY OF CITY HALL HISTORIC, BUT I CAN CARVE OUT THAT SITE WITHIN OUR LOT AND SAY THAT THAT IS ZONE HISTORIC.
SO AS, AS THE, AS A PLANNING BODY, WE CAN LOOK AT ZONES WITHIN THE SITE, BUT NOT STRUCTURES THAT IS NOT UNDER OUR PURVIEW.
YOU GOT IT COMMISSIONER? OKAY, I'M GONNA GO, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO MODIFY THE RULES? JUST TO ENTERTAIN, UM, TWO MORE QUESTIONS.
UH, I'VE GOT ONE AND MAYBE THERE MIGHT BE OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
IS LEGAL GONNA BE AVAILABLE? UM, MR. RIVERA? SURE.
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY MORE INFORMATION OTHER THAN WHAT WAS PROVIDED BY, UH, STAFF.
SO I GUESS THIS IS FOR, I'M JUST GONNA POSE A QUESTION.
THIS IS, UM, SO CAN WE, I'M JUST WITH, IS, ARE WE ABLE TO ONLY ZONE THE EXTERIOR OF THIS BUILDING? HISTORIC, I MEAN, CUZ THAT'S WHAT WE ORDINARY NORMALLY, UH, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE, WHAT WE DO ON, YOU KNOW, HOMES THAT ARE HISTORIC.
IT'S JUST THE OUTSIDE THAT WE'RE CONCERNED WITH.
WE DON'T REALLY GET INVOLVED WITH WHAT THEY DO ON THE INSIDE.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO DRAW A PARALLEL.
ARE WE ABLE TO, IS THAT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW HERE ON THIS PLANNING COMMISSION TO DO, TO DO THAT? WE CAN ZONE A FOOTPRINT, HISTORIC WITHIN A PARCEL.
WE CANNOT ZONE PORTIONS OF A BUILDING COMMISSIONER.
UH, I SEE, UM, THE SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY TO THAT MATTER VERY QUICKLY, AND I MAY HAVE BEEN IMPRECISE IN MY PRESENTATION, YOU CAN TAKE 102 DEEDS FOR EVERY SINGLE CONDOMINIUM AND GIVE EVERY ONE OF THOSE OWNERS A HUNDRED PERCENT, UH, TAX OR ZONING AND TAX RELIEF ON THE COMMON AREA.
EACH ONE OF THEM HAS A PERCENTAGE OF THE COMMON AREA THAT TOTALS A HUNDRED PERCENT.
AND BY DOING THAT, YOU'VE ZONED THE ENTIRE BUILDING STRUCTURE, ALL THE EXTERIOR AND ALL OF THE LAND.
WHAT YOU HAVEN'T DONE IS, IS TAKE THE INSIDE OF THEIR CONDO AND GIVE IT A TAX BREAK.
SO I GUESS I'M, I'M SAYING YES, YOU CAN DO THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE
[01:30:01]
BY DOING THE COMMON AREA THAT IS ACTUALLY ISOLATED AND SAT OUT ON EACH DEED AS A PERCENTAGE, AND THEY WILL EACH GET A TAX BREAK FOR THAT FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL VALUE OF THE WHOLE HIGH-RISE STRUCTURE AND ALL THE LAND, UH, THE APPLICANT.DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT RESPECTFULLY? I WAS LISTENING TO MS. CONTRERAS.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.
YOU CANNOT ZONE A PORTION OF THE BUILDING.
HISTORIC AND THE COMMON AREA IS A PORTION OF THE BUILDING.
UH, WE HAVE ONE MORE SPOT IF ANYBODY WANTS TO TAKE IT.
OTHERWISE WE'LL ENTERTAIN MOTIONS.
UH, WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONER COX, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MOTO.
UM, YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER COX? YES, I DO.
UM, I'VE BEEN INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATED WITH THIS CONVERSATION BECAUSE I THINK ABOUT 99% OF THIS EVENING'S CONVERSATION HAS BEEN ABOUT TAX APPRAISALS AND NOT ABOUT THE ACTUAL MERITS OF THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THIS BUILDING, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DECIDING ON.
UM, I, I HAVE TOO MUCH TO SAY IN THE TIME THAT I'M GIVEN, BUT I, IF, IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THE PROGRAM, THEN LET'S FOCUS ON FIXING THE PROGRAM.
UM, LET'S NOT PENALIZE THE LITTLE BITS, THE LITTLE TINY BITS OF HISTORIC NATURE OF AUSTIN THAT ARE LEFT SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE THE INCENTIVE STRUCTURE THAT THE CITY HAS IMPLEMENTED FOR THIS.
UM, IT WOULD BE A HECK OF A LOT CHEAPER AND EASIER, I GUARANTEE YOU, FOR THE OWNERS OF THIS CONDO BUILDING TO JUST CLAT IT IN SOME CHEAP GLASS SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE STRUCTURE.
IT'S WAY MORE EXPENSIVE TO, TO MAINTAIN HISTORIC STRUCTURE THAN TO JUST USE MODERN DAY CHEAPEST MATERIAL AVAILABLE.
UM, THAT'S KIND OF THE WHOLE POINT OF THE INCENTIVE AND WHY IT'S CALLED AN INCENTIVE.
BUT WE SEEM TO BE FOCUSED ON WHO GETS TAX BREAKS WHEN A CLEARLY DESERVING HISTORIC STRUCTURE IS UP IN FRONT OF US TO DECIDE IF THEY GET HISTORIC ZONING OR NOT.
I RECENTLY HAD A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO, ABOUT OUR ENVIRONMENTAL CODE AND HOW IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY SORT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR CHARGING STATIONS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES, EVEN THOUGH ENVIRONMENTALLY WE WANNA MOVE THAT WAY BECAUSE WE WANT TO GET OFF OF AN OIL ECONOMY.
AND I FEEL LIKE IF THAT ACTUALLY CAME BEFORE US, WE MIGHT SPEND THE WHOLE TIME TALKING ABOUT TAX BREAKS FOR PEOPLE WHO BUY ELECTRIC VEHICLES RATHER THAN THE ACTUAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF MOVING TOWARDS OR MOVING AWAY FROM AN OIL ECONOMY.
AND SO I, I'M, I'M VERY FRUSTRATED IN THIS CONVERSATION.
I HOPE THIS COMMISSION FOCUSES ON THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THIS BUILDING AND THE FACT THAT IT DESERVES THAT, AND THE FACT THAT THE NATIONAL REGISTER HAS RECOGNIZED THAT.
BUT THE ONLY WAY TO ACTUALLY PROTECT THAT HISTORIC NATURE IS THROUGH THIS HISTORIC ZONING.
AND SO I REALLY HOPE THAT THIS COMMISSION SUPPORTS IT, AND THEN WE CAN ALWAYS HAVE A SEPARATE CONVERSATION ABOUT MODIFYING THE INCENTIVES WITHIN THE PROGRAM TO BETTER MATCH OUR VALUES OR, OR WHAT WE THINK, UM, WHAT WE THINK THAT SHOULD BE.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER, SHE, SO I'VE ALWAYS BEEN ONE THAT REALLY CONSIDERS A LOT ABOUT THE HISTORIC ASPECTS OF A PROJECT.
DO YOU GUYS KNOW? BUT, AND I FALLEN BACK TO THE INTENT OF WHAT THE CODE WAS THERE FOR.
AND WHEN WE LOOK AT IT, IT WAS SET OUT THERE BECAUSE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, RIGHT? AND SO WE LOOK AT IT, IS THERE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT? AND WE SAID, YES, THERE IS.
BUT THE WAY WE INCENTIVIZE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, ALSO, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT.
HOW DOES IT HURT THE OTHER COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BENEFIT? AND THE INTENT OF THE CODE WAS WHAT IT BENEFITS EVERYBODY.
BUT AT, AT THE WAY THAT THIS THING IS, IS CREATED, THE BALANCE IS, I LOOK AT IT AND I GOTTA LOOK ZOOM IN AND OUT.
LIKE, FINE, WE HAVE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION THAT'LL LOOK AT THESE ASPECTS, BUT AS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, WE NEED TO ZOOM OUT AND LOOK HOW EVERYTHING BALANCES TOGETHER.
OTHERWISE, WE SHOULD JUST BE THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION AND FOLLOW THE SAME THING.
BUT WE NEED TO ZOOM OUT, LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE, AND SEE HOW IT AFFECTS THOSE THAT ARE GONNA BE POSSIBLY DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED BY, YOU KNOW, HOW LISTING BALANCE OUT.
SO THEN WE GO BACK TO THE EQUITABILITY OF HOW THESE THINGS ARE CALCULATED.
THIS THING WITH AN INTENT WAS THAT YOU HAVE HISTORIC PIECE OF STRUCTURE, AND THEN THERE'S A SINGLE ENTITY INSIDE.
OKAY, THAT'S HOW IT WAS CALIBRATED.
BUT NOW WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THE EXTERIOR SKIN IS CON, CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAINED.
IT'S STAGNANT, AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
[01:35:01]
TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION TO SEE HOW WE CAN JUST ZONE THAT.BECAUSE THAT IS THE HISTORIC PART.
THE INSIDE CAN FLUCTUATE IN VALUE.
WE COULD CREATE FIVE MORE UNITS, 20 MORE UNITS, WE CAN INCREASE THE VALUE, DECREASE THE VALUE UP AND DOWN.
YET THE, THE OUTSIDE SKIN STILL STAYS EXACTLY THE SAME.
AND THE INTENT OF OUR CODE WHEN WE WROTE IT, WAS TO PROTECT THAT PART.
YET SOMEHOW, WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT THE AIRSPACE AND THE VALUE OF THE INSIDE OF IT, IT DOESN'T CHANGE H HOW THE COST TO MAINTAIN THE EXTERIOR SKIN.
SO I, I DON'T THINK IT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE CODE OF ORIGINALLY WHERE IT CAME FROM.
AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE, I'VE KNOWN THE PERSON WHO ORIGINALLY STARTED, BETTY BAKER HAD TALKED TO ME ABOUT THIS BEFORE.
IT'S LIKE, WE GOTTA LOOK AT HOW IT'S A COMMUNITY BENEFIT.
WHAT IS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT AND HOW IS IT BALANCED? AND MY CONCERN IS, IF WE TAKE THIS TOO FAR ONE WAY, THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BENEFIT AND THEN THOSE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT ANOTHER COMMUNITY MIGHT ACTUALLY GET AFFECTED NEGATIVELY BY IT.
SO, UM, I'M NOT READY TO SUPPORT THIS.
DO I THINK THERE'S HISTORIC MERIT? ABSOLUTELY.
BUT AT, YOU KNOW, GOING IN AT THIS POINT, I, I, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT.
I THINK IT NEEDS MORE DISCUSSION.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A WAY, CUZ WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE.
ALL RIGHT, THOSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR, COMMISS OF COMMISSIONER MITCH TELLER, I THINK AS THE JUNIOR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, BOTH COMMISSIONER COX AND I HAVE HAD OUR HANDS SLAPPED FOR GOING OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF WHAT WE'VE BEING ASKED TO DECIDE.
AND SO I DO FIND IT COMICAL THAT WE'RE PULLING IT BACK INTO THE PURVIEW OF WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DECIDE.
AND I, I, I OBVIOUSLY GAVE GOOD DOCTOR OR COMMISSIONER COX, THE, SORRY, WRONG JOB.
I MEAN, TO ME, THIS FITS EVERYTHING WE LOOK FOR.
THEY'RE ALREADY ON THE HISTORIC REGISTRY.
IT'S IN A PART OF TOWN WHERE EVERYBODY CAN SEE IT.
YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES WE LOOK AT ARE BURIED BACK BEHIND NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND IF YOU GET THE MAP AND GO AND TRACE IT OUT AND FIND IT, MAYBE YOU'LL SEE IT.
BUT ANYBODY COMING TO THE CAPITAL IS GONNA APPRECIATE THIS EXTERIOR BUILDING.
I'M NOT TOO, TOO PARTIAL TO THAT ERA OF ARCHITECTURE, BUT IT, IT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA.
SO TO ME, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO SUPPORT.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT, WE'RE HEARING FROM OUR CITY STAFF THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT HOW THE PROGRAM IS ADMINISTERED.
AND IF WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, THEN THAT'S THE PROPER FORUM TO TAKE THAT DISCUSSION.
THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS, DOES THIS MEET HISTORIC CRITERIA AND SHOULD IT BE DESIGNATED AS SUCH FOR THE PUBLIC? GOOD? AND THE ANSWER IS YES.
THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION, UH, COMMISSION ISAR, THANK YOU CHAIR.
I, I JUST WANNA START BY SAYING I THINK THIS IS A TRULY UNIQUE AND SOMEWHAT BUSTLING AND DIFFICULT CASE FOR ALL OF US TO DECIDE.
AND I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, THE HISTORIC ASPECT OF IT IS IMPORTANT.
AND I THINK THERE'S WAYS THAT WE COULD HAVE DONE IT.
SO WE COULD HAVE TAKEN THE LAVACA STREET FRONT ASIAN ZONE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, SITE THAT PIECE OF THE SITE HISTORIC, OR WE COULD TAKE THE COLORADO STREET SITE AND TAKE THAT SITE PIECE OF THE SITE AND ZONE A HISTORIC THAT IS WITHIN OUR LEGAL PURVIEW.
I JUST WISH WE HAD BEEN ABLE TO FIGURE THAT OUT WITH STAFF OR STAFF COULD HELP US IN GETTING TO THAT IDEAL SITUATION.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE NOT GETTING THAT HELP HERE, WHICH BUSHES ME TO VOTE AGAINST IT.
AND I DO WANNA SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BEING REMINDED THAT WE HAVE TO REMAIN WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE CODE.
AND THAT WAS A CHALLENGE FOR US.
AND I DO WANNA SAY, SO ONE PIECE THAT WE AS COMMISSIONERS REGULARLY DO LOOK AT IS COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, OPPOSITION TO SOMETHING.
OTHERWISE, HONESTLY, WE HAVE A LOT OF CASES WHICH MEET ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS AND WE REGULARLY VOTE AGAINST THEM BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY.
OTHERWISE, WE WOULD NOT BE TALKING ABOUT AIRBNB LISTINGS, WE WOULD NOT BE TALKING ABOUT BALCONIES AND THE IMPACT ON SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
WE WOULD BE NOT BE TALKING ABOUT NON, UM, YOU KNOW, TREES THAT ARE NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW.
SO ALL THAT TO SAY, LISTENING TO THE COMMUNITY IS ONE PART OF THIS JOB.
AND I THINK WE DO HAVE REAL CONCERNS.
AND I DO WANNA SAY, I DON'T WANNA JUST SAY THIS IS ONE PERSON.
WE'VE HEARD FROM MULTIPLE PEOPLE, THERE'S A REAL CONCERN HERE.
AND I DO WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE SAID.
AND MY HOPE WOULD BE, IN AN IDEAL WORLD, I MIGHT HAVE JUST POSTPONED THIS CASE TO SAY, WE CAN GET OUR EQUITY PLAN DONE.
SO WE HAVE MORE TOOLS TO DO THIS.
[01:40:01]
SURE WHY, WHY WE ARE NOT ABLE TO DO SOME OTHER THINGS LIKE TAKING PARTIAL BITS OF THE SITE OR DOING OTHER PIECES.BUT CONSIDERING THE MOTION IN FRONT OF ME, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I DO THINK, AGAIN, AS TRICKY AS THIS CASE IS, WE HAVE TO BE GOOD CARETAKERS OF OUR CODE AND THE PROGRAMS THAT GO WITH IT.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER, TO SPEAK IN FAVOR, UH, COM, UH, CHER HEMPLE.
SO, UM, THIS IS A CHALLENGING CASE, BUT I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE RECENT HISTORIC ZONING CASES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE US WHERE THE, THE STRUCTURE, THE HOUSE WAS ABOUT TO FALL DOWN, OR THE, IT WAS UNINHABITABLE OR DANGEROUS.
IT'S REALLY CHALLENGING OR DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE ZONING SOME OF THOSE HISTORIC AND PUTTING THE BURDEN ON THE OWNERS TO RENOVATE IT.
I THINK SOME OF THOSE HAVE BEEN VERY PROBLEMATIC.
SO I'M NOT COMPARING THOSE CASES TO THIS, BUT HERE WE HAVE A GROUP OF OWNERS WHO ARE BEING PROACTIVE ABOUT KEEPING UP THE, THE BUILDING IN A HISTORIC MANNER.
IT IS EXPENSIVE, AND I, UM, WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
ANY, UH, COMMISSIONERS WANNA SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, TYPICALLY, UH, I AM IN FAVOR OF DESIGNATING, UH, BUILDINGS HISTORIC WHEN IT'S POSSIBLE.
UH, BUT THIS COMMISSION ROUTINELY HAS, UH, GREAT EXAMPLES OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT WE DON'T GRANT HISTORIC DESIGNATION TO.
IN FACT, RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER ON 12TH STREET, THERE WAS A BUILDING THAT SOME PEOPLE CALL THE MASTERPIECE OF MODERNISM THAT FOR WHAT A COULD GENERALLY BE DESCRIBED AS EQUITABLE REASONS, UH, DID NOT GET THE SUFFICIENT VOTE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MOVE AHEAD.
I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT TO ARGUE IN FAVOR OF THIS BUILDING.
UM, BUT TO BOTH COMMISSIONER SHAY AND COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER'S POINT, I, I FEEL LIKE WE, WE DON'T HAVE THE, THE RIGHT TOOLS IN PLACE AND THERE MAY BE A SOLUTION FOR THIS THAT WE COULD DESIGN WITH CITY STAFF HELP THAT WE'VE JUST BEEN UNABLE TO DESIGN.
SO, I, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE GOT THIS BINARY DECISION.
YES, WE'VE DESIGNATED OR NO, AND WE NEED TO BE MORE NUANCED.
AND SO I'M, I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN ON THIS.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, TAKE A VOTE.
THIS IS THE MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION FROM COMMISSIONER COX.
TO THOSE IN THE DIAS IN FAVOR, THIS MOTION LE UH, RAISE YOUR HAND.
THOSE ON THE IN VIRTUAL SPACE, UH, PLEASE SHOW ME YOUR GREEN FOR OKAY.
AND THOSE ON THE DI AGAINST, UH, VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
SEE, LEAVE YOUR HAND UP PLEASE.
THOSE ON THE SCREEN, VOTING IN OPPOSITION, I SEE YELLOW, UH, COMMISSION, UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES AND COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER STAINING.
SO, SO BY MY COUNT, THAT'S 6 32, SO THAT MOTION FAILS.
SO ARE WE PASSING THIS ON WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION? YEAH.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO ANYTHING MORE.
BILLS WITH SIX, IT WAS 6, 6, 4.
THREE AGAINST, AND TWO ABSTAINING.
SO PAT, NO, WE NEED A, UM, SEVEN IS, WE HAVE 13 MEMBERS, SO WE NEED AT LEAST SEVEN.
UM, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE DOWN TO JUST 11 MEMBERS, WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE SEVEN VOTES TO PASS IT.
SO WE NEED TO GO IN, UH, I GUESS, YEAH, THAT'S ALL WE CAN DO.
WHEN, UH, DO WE KNOW WHEN THIS WILL BE GO TO COUNCIL, MR. RIVERA.
IT'S, I THINK IT'S STILL BEING DECIDED.
UM, THERE'S SOME, UM, COUNCIL DATES THAT ARE BEING, UH, SCHEDULED.
BUT I DO SEE THAT A COMMISSIONER COX HAS THAT INQUIRY.
[01:45:01]
FACING STAFF'S WRATH? I'M WONDERING IF I CAN TRY ANOTHER MOTION.LET'S HEAR IT AND SEE IF YOU GET A SECOND.
I, I MEAN, IT SHOWS OUR INTENT, AT LEAST IT THROWS IT FORWARD AND SAY, HEY GUYS.
AT LEAST THERE'S A MESSAGE THAT GETS ACROSS.
I DON'T WAIT, WHAT? HOLD? I DON'T, SO PLEASE, PLEASE RESTATE THAT, UH, MR. UH, MR. COX APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION ON THE EXTERIOR FACADE AND COMMON AREAS.
I GUESS EXTERIOR'S, FACADE CAN, IS COMMON AREA ALSO, RIGHT? I MEAN, COMMON INTERIOR, IT'S GOOD.
UH, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT COMMON, THAT WHAT I WAS HEARING WITH, WELL, WE'LL TALK IF I GET A SECOND.
UM, LET ME JUST, I NEED TO TALK TO MR. RIVERA REAL QUICK.
YEAH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE, UH, A QUICK FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
COME BACK TO CHAIR COMMISSION HEIGHT ON BEAR BEFORE YOU DO SO.
IF I, IF I MAY, OH, YOU WANT GO AHEAD AND SPEAK? YES, UNFORTUNATELY THAT, UM, MOTION IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
OKAY, SO WE DON'T GET A BREAK.
THAT MOTION IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
IT'S NOT THAT IT'S, SO BESIDES THE, IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT IS, I WAS GONNA ASK THOUGH.
I MEAN, WHETHER WE, WHETHER WE GAVE IT OUR, OUR VOTE OR NOT, IT'S GOING TO, COUNCIL COUNCIL'S GONNA HAVE THE INFORMATION.
CAN WE SEND IT WITH THE, WE AT LEAST SEND THIS WITH THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WE WERE, HAVE STAFF PUT THE NOTES IN ON WHAT OUR, WHAT OUR CONCERN AND INTENT WAS.
CHAIR COMMISSION, LAY LIAISON,
SO IN THE, WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE IS A ISSUE SECTION AND, UM, THAT COULD BE REFERENCED.
YEAH, I THINK THAT WE'LL SEND WHAT THE MESSAGE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET ACROSS.
DO WE STILL GET A BREAK,
IF, IF WE HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ISSUE SECTION OF THE COUNCIL MEMO REPRESENTS WHAT WE DISCUSSED HERE, I JUST WANT TO THROW IT OUT THERE.
DOES ANYONE WHO VOTED AGAINST OR ABSTAINED WANT TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE SO THAT WE CAN RECONSIDER THE VOTE CHAIR? UH, WE HAVE A POINT OF ORDER.
UM, GO AHEAD, TARA CON SAY THAT AGAIN.
THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR WAS DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE, UH, I THINK BY OUR LEGAL STAFF.
SO I THINK IT'S, UM, IT'S BEEN WITHDRAWN.
DO WE NEED TO FORMALLY WITHDRAW THAT? UM, IT SO IT, IT, IT DOESN'T, WE CAN'T VOTE ON IT, SO IT'S, SO NO, IT DOES.
I GUESS IT DOESN'T, I WAS, I WAS SPEAKING, I WAS SPEAKING TO RECONSIDERING THE VOTE THAT WE JUST TOOK.
IF ANYONE WHO NOW UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE STAFF MEMO WILL SAY, IF ANYONE WANTS TO RECONSIDER THEIR NO VOTE OR THEIR ABSTENTION ON THE VOTE, WE TOOK.
SO JUST WANNA CLARIFY THE, THAT MOTION THAT, UH, COMMISS IS DISPOSED, IT'S DEAD, JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, RIGHT? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE, I THINK WE JUST LEAVE IT.
I, I HEAR YOU MISS, UH, COMMISSIONER COXS AND I DON'T SEE ANYONE, UH, MOTION FOR A RECONSIDERATION.
SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE, UH, AT THIS POINT, LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK, UH, RECESS FOR FIVE, AND WE'LL COME BACK, UH, AT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND JUST COME BACK AT 8 0 5.
BRINGING THIS, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION, MEANING BACK TO ORDER, WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT, AND THE NEXT ITEM IS
[23. Code Amendment: Environmental Protection, Landscape Requirements, and Site Plan Requirements]
ITEM 23.SO THIS IS THE, UH, CODE AMENDMENT ITEM, UH, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS AND SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
SO WE'VE HAD THIS IN FRONT OF US A FEW TIMES, AND ACTIONS COMPLETED TO DATE.
JUST TO REMIND COMMISSIONERS, UH, WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, WE DO HAVE A FEW SPEAKERS THIS EVENING.
[01:50:01]
TO SPEAK.WE HAD SAP PRESENTATION AND PC Q AND A.
SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS, RIGHT AFTER WE GET DONE WITH THE SPEAKERS, UH, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A BASE MOTION AND, UH, WE'LL, UH, GO THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT AND IDENTIFY THOSE THAT WE WANNA KEEP ON CONSENT AND THOSE THAT WE NEED TO PULL FOR DISCUSSION, KIND OF THE USUAL AFFAIR.
AND I'LL GO THROUGH THE, UH, LET'S GO INTO HERE FOR THE SPEAKERS, AND THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT THE TIMEFRAMES FOR Q AND A WITHIN IN, IN THE PRESENTATION TIME FOR EACH OF THOSE, UM, ONCE WE, AFTER WE GET DONE WITH SPEAKERS.
UH, WELL FIRST HERE FOR MISS MAURO POWERS.
MS. POWERS, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
SELECT STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
I'M A VOLUNTEER WITH THE ADVOCACY COMMITTEE OF THE TRAVIS AUTO AUTOMO SOCIETY.
OUR CHAPTER WAS FOUNDED 70 YEARS AGO WITH THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING BIRDS FROM THE GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER RISKS IN TRAVIS COUNTY.
BEGINNING IN THE 1960S, TRAVIS ABAN BEGAN TO ACQUIRE LAND TO PROVIDE A SANCTUARY PRIMARILY FOR THE GOLDEN SHEEP WAR BLUR.
THE BUTLER SANCTUARY HAS BEEN MAINTAINED AND MANAGED EVER SINCE.
YOU MAY ALREADY KNOW THAT TEXAS IS UNDER THE CENTRAL FLYWAY FOR MIGRATING BIRDS IN NORTH AMERICA.
HOWEVER, HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN CENTRAL TEXAS HAVE OVERTAKEN AUTO BONDS AND OTHER CONSERVATION GROUPS' ABILITY TO PROTECT HABITAT.
IN THE PAST 30 YEARS, TEXAS HAS EXPERIENCED A STUNNING DECLINE IN THE BIRD POPULATION, IN PART DUE TO STARVATION.
EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A GLOBAL PROBLEM, SOLUTIONS MUST BEGIN AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, AND THEY MUST BE SYSTEMIC FOR ANY CHANCE OF SUCCESS.
FOR THIS REASON, THE TRAFFIC THOUGHT ABOUT SOCIETY COMES BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY TO URGE YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE IMMEDIATE ADOPTION OF THE FUNCTIONAL GREEN LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR MANY YEARS, AND WHICH WILL PROVIDE SUSTENANCE AND HABITAT FOR MIGRATORY SPECIES, AS WELL AS OUR ENDEMIC SPECIES.
WE ALSO SUPPORT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION THAT DEVELOPMENTS BE REQUIRED TO INCLUDE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE PLANS FOR THEIR LANDSCAPING, SO THAT IT THRIVES AND PROVIDES THE ACTUAL BENEFIT NEEDED LONG TERM.
FINALLY, WE AGREE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION STAFF THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL CAN BE EXPEDITIOUSLY COMPLETED ONCE THE NEW SUB HAS BEEN ADOPTED.
SO IS, THERE IS NO NEED TO DELAY ADOPTION ANY LONGER.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND LISTENING TO OUR COMMENTS TODAY.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM MR. RICHARD BREMER.
MR. BMER, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.
I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
HOWEVER, I WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND NOT THE COMMISSION IN ITS ENTIRETY.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON THE UPDATES TO THE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 25 AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL CODE ARE THE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS.
I'VE TAKEN THE TIME TO READ EACH LINE OF THE CHANGES PROPOSED IN THE CITY CODE.
THIS CODE UPDATES SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
TOO MANY SECTIONS HAVE CLAUSES WHICH STATE THE DIRECTOR SHALL DETERMINE, FOR EXAMPLE, SECTION 28 DASH EIGHT DASH 42.
CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES CONTAIN SO MANY FLAWS THAT IT CANNOT BE SALVAGED.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED ITS REMOVAL.
THE PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION IS TO ALLOW PUBLIC INPUT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROCESS AS IS, AS IT IMPACTS THE ENVIRONMENT.
MOVING THESE DECISIONS TO CITY TO CITY STAFF ELIMINATES THE ABILITY OF THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE INPUT AND HOLD THE CITY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE END RESULTS.
THERE ARE ADDITIONAL SHORTCOMINGS TO THIS, ONCE IN A LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A GENERATIONAL CHANGE TO THE CITY CODE FIRST.
BY THE YEAR 2030, ALL VEHICLE MAKERS WILL BE MAKING PRIMARY ELECTRIC CARS, YET WE ARE NOT REQUIRING LARGE COMMERCIAL OR APARTMENT DEVELOPERS TO SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF EV CHARGING STATIONS IN THEIR PARKING AREAS.
SECOND, AS THE CLIMATE AROUND AUSTIN BECOMES HOTTER AND DRYER, WE ARE NOT ENCOURAGING LARGE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS USE ZEROSCAPING AS PART OF THEIR LANDSCAPING STRATEGY AND ELIMINATE THE USE OF CITY WATER FOR WATER LANDS OR FOR WATERING AND LANDSCAPING.
NEXT, WHY ARE WE NOT ENCOURAGING THE USE OF SOLAR POWER AS PART OF LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS SUCH AS LOGISTIC SITES OR OTHER LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS? MANY OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS LITERALLY HAVE ACRES OF ROOFTOPS
[01:55:01]
WHERE SOLAR PANELS CAN BE MOUNTED.MY LAST POINT IS THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO ADDRESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN WEST AUSTIN AND EAST AUSTIN.
THE CURRENT PROCESS DOES NOT ADDRESS SIGNIFICANT LANGUAGE BARRIERS TO LOW COST HOURLY WAGE WORKERS TO CONTEST THESE ISSUES AND THE TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED TO EFFECTIVELY NAVIGATE THE CITY PROCESSES TO SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGE THEM.
ALSO, CITY CODES PROVIDE HIGHER LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, WEST AUSTIN, AND SIGNIFICANTLY LESS PROTECTION TO EAST AUSTIN.
THESE ARE SERIOUS EQUITY CONCERNS.
THE, HE WILL NOW HEAR FROM MS. CARNAHAN.
MS. CARNAHAN, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.
MY NAME IS LENA CARNAHAN, AND I'M HERE TODAY REPRESENTING THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF AUSTIN.
RICO'S POSITION ON THE 11 ITEMS UP FOR CONSIDERATION HAVE ALREADY BEEN SHARED WITH YOU EARLIER TODAY.
UM, HBA SENT THEM TO YOU, SO I'M NOT GONNA BELABOR THE POINT AND GO OVER EACH INDIVIDUAL THING.
UM, OVERALL, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT THE ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS WILL HAVE ON THE COST OF NEW HOUSING.
THE IMPACT OF THESE NEW PROCESSES AND THE ALREADY EXTENSIVE REVIEW TIMELINES BY STAFF ACROSS THE CITY.
IT ISN'T CLEAR THAT EVERY DEPARTMENT IS PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD QUICKLY ON APPROVALS FOR ALL OF THESE NEW ITEMS. WE'VE ALREADY, FOR EXAMPLE, FOUND POINTS OF INTERDEPARTMENT CONFLICT THAT WOULD IMPACT FUNCTIONAL GREEN'S IMPLEMENTATION.
SO TO BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE SOME OF THE CONCERNS WE HAVE ON THESE 11 ITEMS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR GREEN STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IS INCREDIBLY VAGUE, AND IT OPENS UP A HUGE AMOUNT OF CONCERN FOR POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL COST DELAYS AND VERY WIDE VARIETIES OF INTERPRETATIONS BY STAFF.
THERE ARE STILL CONCERNS ABOUT REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING LOTS TO MITIGATE THE STORM WATER RUNOFF IN A NEW WAY.
THIS COULD POTENTIALLY COMPLETELY CHANGE HOW PARKING LOTS ARE SET UP AND CHANGE STORM DRAIN REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS RAISE WATER QUALITY CONCERNS WITH THE AMOUNT AND TYPE OF RUNOFF THAT YOU'D SEE.
FUNCTIONAL GREEN, AS YOU'VE HEARD SEVERAL TIMES, HAS A NUMBER OF CONFLICTS, ISSUES AND COSTS THAT NEED TO BE FULLY EXPLORED THROUGH A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND MORE THOROUGH CALIBRATION.
THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE BOTH AT THE CODE CHANGE LEVEL AND THE CRITERIA MANUAL LEVEL.
OUR MEMBERS STILL HAVE NOT SEEN A CLEAR PUBLIC MAP OR UNDERSTOOD THE ACTUAL IMPACT OF EITHER THE LONGHORN DAM CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE OR DOWNTOWN WETLAND PROTECTION AREAS, AND DON'T FEEL THAT THESE ITEMS SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD.
WITHOUT COMPLETE CLARIFICATION ON WHAT WOULD HAPPEN THERE.
RICO SUPPORTS CREATING A CLEAR SITE PLAN, LIGHT PROCESS COORDINATED ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPORTS A MORE EXTENSIVE PROCESS TO GET THERE FOR THE MISSING MIDDLE ITEM.
THAT'S A VERY QUICK SUMMARY OF THE POSITIONS THAT THE BUILDERS, CONSTRUCTION FIRMS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS THAT MAKE UP OUR MEMBERSHIP HAVE BROUGHT FORTH.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I CAN ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THEM AND I'LL BE AVAILABLE THE REST OF THE EVENING.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
ALL RIGHT, SO, UH, REAL QUICK, UH, WANNA GO OVER MY PROPOSED MODIFIED RULES FOR DEBATE.
UH, SOME YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS FRAMEWORK, WE'VE USED IT BEFORE FOR CODE AMENDMENTS, UH, BUT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, CONCERNS? WE CAN DISCUSS THEM.
UM, BUT LOOKING FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, AGREEMENT ON THIS ONE IF WE CAN GET IT.
SO, UH, THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO DO IS ESTABLISH A BASE MOTION.
IN THE PAST WE'VE USED STAFF, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS AS KIND OF THE BASE, AND THEN WE WORK THROUGH THE, UH, WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT COMMISSIONER AAR WILL, UM, OFFER UP A DESCRIPTION OF THOSE.
AND WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL START, UH, HE WILL START WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF THE FIRST ITEM.
WE'LL GO IN ORDER, AND THEN, UH, HE'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES, UH, TO GIVE US SOME BACKGROUND.
AND THEN, UH, THIS IS THEN WE'LL GO INTO, WE'LL HAVE TWO COMMISSIONERS ALLOW TWO MINUTES EACH.
AND THIS IS JUST TO DECIDE WHETHER TO KEEP IT ON CONSENT OR PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT LENGTHY TALK ABOUT IT IF IT'S, WE HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS WE NEED TO PULL IT.
SO JUST A FEW CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, AND I'LL MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER TO PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION.
AND, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU HAVE, UM, INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS, BUT IF YOU DO THAT ARE RELATED TO AN ITEM, WE PROBABLY WANNA PULL IT SO THAT WE CAN WORK WITH SOME SUBSTITUTIONS AND AMENDMENTS.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANY THAT YOU ARE THINKING OF, I DON'T THINK WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY SUBMITTED AHEAD OF TIME, BUT YOU MAY HAVE SOME HERE TONIGHT THAT YOU WANNA BRING UP.
UH, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT'S BEING, WHAT THE WORKING GROUP ACTIVITY IS, BECAUSE IF WE'VE ALREADY COVERED A TOPIC AND GENERALLY DISCUSSED IT, UM, I'M NOT REALLY WANT TO BRING BACK AND REHASH THE SAME ISSUES IF WE ALREADY HAD A VOTE THAT TOUCHED ON THAT INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT.
SO PLEASE, UH, PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO, UM, AT THAT POINT, UH, YEAH, WE'LL GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THEM IN THAT SAME FASHION.
AND THEN WE DO HAVE, UM, THE OPTION TO DIVIDE WELL
[02:00:01]
THROUGHOUT THE EVENING.WE CAN DIVIDE THE QUESTION, AND IF WE DON'T, IF WE HAVE OPPOSITION, WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON THAT, BUT THERE MAY BE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE CODE THAT WE WISH TO TREAT AND VOTE ON DIFFERENTLY AND SEPARATELY.
SO THAT WOULD BE DIVIDING THE QUESTION.
SO JUST REMEMBER THAT IS A TOOL IN OUR TOOLKIT.
ALL RIGHT, SO ONCE WE HAVE PULLED THE ITEMS FORWARD, JUST, UH, WE'LL, WE'VE JUST DECIDED WHAT'S ON CONSENT, WHAT'S FOR DISCUSSION.
WE'LL MOVE IN ORDER THROUGH EACH ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.
AND THAT WOULD BE, UH, WE'LL ALLOW THREE COMMISSIONERS, THREE MINUTES EACH, UH, FOR QUESTIONS OF EACH OTHER, THE WORKING GROUP, UH, OR OF STAFF OR EVEN SPEAKERS.
IT'S PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING, ANYBODY YOU NEED TO GET ANSWERS, ANYBODY YOU NEED TO GET ANSWERS FROM.
AND AT THE END OF THE Q AND A, UM, COMMISSIONERS CAN MAKE A MOTION RELATED TO THE AMENDMENT THAT'S UNDER DISCUSSION.
IF THE MOTION GETS A SECOND, WE'LL MOVE INTO DEBATE UNDER OUR NORMAL RULES.
UH, AND AGAIN, UH, YOU CAN SPLIT THE MOTION IF WE NEED TO.
UM, IF IT'S A LITTLE ALL ENCOMPASSING, YOU WANNA TAKE IT IN SMALLER PARTS, WE CAN DO THAT, UH, WITH A, UM, SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.
AND IF WE'VE, UH, LABORED OVER AN ITEM AT LENGTH, YOU CAN ALSO CALL THE QUESTION.
AND IF WE HAVE A, UH, AT THIS TIME, I'M JUST GONNA MAKE IT A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE IN THESE RULES TO GO AHEAD AND ASK TO CALL THE QUESTION AND TAKE A VOTE AND END THE DEBATE.
SO AFTER THAT, UM, IF WE GET ANY INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS, UH, WE'LL MOVE THOSE IN A SIMILAR FASHION, UH, ALPHABETICAL ORDER BY, UH, COMMISSIONER'S LAST NAME, IF YOU WILL GO AROUND AND SEE IF THERE ARE ANY INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS AND WE'LL AFFORD THOSE.
THE SAME PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION.
YOU'LL GET TO SPEAK TO YOUR AMENDMENT.
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THREE QUESTIONS, UH, FOR THREE MINUTES EACH AND, AND THEN WE'LL ENTERTAIN MOTIONS AT THAT POINT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, TO THE PROCESS FOR USING THIS EVENING? COMMISSIONER DESIRE? UM, TO, JUST TO CLARIFY, I'M LOOKING AT THE RULES THAT WERE SHARED WITH US AND UNDER THE ESTABLISHED BASE MOTION.
THE THIRD POINT IS BC VOTES ON BASE MOTION AND CONSENT WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
I BELIEVE, IF I'M CORRECT, WE CAN ONLY VOTE ON THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
THE BASE MOTION HAS TO BE VOTED ON AFTER ALL THE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN BOARDED ON.
YEAH, I GUESS WE SHARED, WAS THAT A PREVIOUS VERSION THAT WAS SHARED CHAIR COMMISSION LIES ON? UH, YES.
I MAY HAVE DISSEMINATED THE, UH, OKAY.
SO AT THE END OF THE MEETING, CLARIFICATION AT THE END, END OF THIS ITEM ON Y'ALL, UM, ENCAPSULATE ALL THE AMENDMENTS AND THE BASE MOTION.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED AND, UM, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE, WELL, SO DO I HAVE A, UM, A RECOMMENDATION FOR A BASE MOTION? LET ME GO AHEAD AND, UH, COMMISSIONER COX.
SO I GUESS THE BASE MOTION WOULD BE TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UH, ANY POSITION TO THAT IS OUR BASE MOTION.
ARE WE GONNA GO AND VOTE ON THIS? NO.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR.
TAKE US TO THE FIRST WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT, PLEASE.
UM, SO THE, AND THIS WAS IN THE BACKUP, SO HOPEFULLY FOLKS CAN FOLLOW ALONG.
UM, THIS FIRST AMENDMENT RELATES TO THE SUB CHAPTER C, WHICH IS FUNCTIONAL GREEN.
IT IS A SOMEWHAT LONG, UM, AMENDMENT.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ OUT PARTS OF IT AND THEN EXPLAIN IT BECAUSE I KNOW WE ARE LIMITED ON TIME.
HOPEFULLY, AGAIN, I SEE WE HAVE THEM IN FRONT OF US AS WELL.
SO THE MAIN THING IS, TOO, THAT WE'RE DELAYING CONSIDERATION OF THE FUNCTIONAL GREEN SUB ITEM CONTAINED IN 25 DASH EIGHT DASH SUB C FOR STAFF TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT PROVIDING SOME RESULTS FROM ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, WORKING WITH STAFF TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT ON DEVELOPABLE SPACE IN SOME OF OUR MORE, UM, INTENSE ZONES, WORKING WITH STAFF AND STAKEHOLDERS TO PROVIDE ANALYSIS OF, UM, DUE TEST CASES, AT LEAST IN LOOKING AT THEIR SMALL SITES, LOOKING AT ONE ACRE IN LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE.
BUT, UM, PROVIDING GREATER DEFINITION IN THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT REGARDING THE ANTICIPATED COSTS, WORKING WITH STAFF AND STAKEHOLDER, UM, TO
[02:05:01]
WORK ON SOME FINANCIAL MODELING AROUND TEST CASES.WE KNOW THIS IS A CHALLENGE, SO HOPEFULLY, UM, WE HAVE OTHER STAFF TEAMS AND, UM, COMMUNITY GROUPS THAT CAN HELP US WITH THAT.
WORKING WITH HPD STAFF TO ASSESS THE UTILIZATION OF BONUS ENTITLEMENTS, UH, WORKING WITH STAFF FROM HPD QUARTER PROGRAMING OFFICE IN THE PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE TO JUST LOOK AT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS ON THE E O PROCESS, ENSURING THEIR REGULAR VISION TO LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND PLANTINGS DOES NOT REQUIRE SITE PLAN VISION.
AND I THINK I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THAT IS ALREADY UNDER CONSIDERATION, PROVIDING THE LITERATURE REVIEW THAT CAME TO, UH, DEFINE THE MULTIPLIERS THAT WE HAVE ON THE CODE TABLE.
ALSO, THE 0.3 THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT THAT WAS SET IN THE CODE, UM, EXPLAINING HOW SOME OF THESE REQUIREMENTS WORK ALONG WITH PARKLAND, DEDICATION, GRADE STREETS, AND SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE HAVE.
AND LASTLY, UM, ASSESSMENT AND PROVIDE DATA ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF MAINTAINING THESE OVERTIME.
AND AGAIN, HONESTLY, SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED BY STAFF.
SO THE PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE AT THIS TIME WOULD BE REMOVING THAT ITEM ALTOGETHER.
SO THIS WOULD BE A STRIKE THROUGH.
AND IT'S REALLY OUR INTENTION HERE IS THAT THERE'S SOME UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, BOTH FROM US AS THE WORKING GROUP, BUT ALSO FROM OUR, UM, STAKEHOLDERS.
AND WE'RE PROVIDING THE TIME FOR OUR STAFF TO COME BACK FROM THAT.
AND I THINK THEY AGREE THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE A LOT OF THESE DIFFERENT ANSWERS.
THEY HOPE IS TO BRING THIS BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, UM, AS SOON AS WE CAN ACHIEVE ALL OF THIS.
SO THAT IS THIS ITEM, AND I'LL STOP AND OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS.
SO, UM, GOING AND STARTING, UH, JUST TO COMMISSIONERS TWO MINUTES EACH TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE KEEP THIS CHAIR.
UH, WELL, LET'S, WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND THERE YOU GO.
COMMISSIONER COX, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION.
I JUST WANTED TO, TO, TO REAL QUICKLY ADD ONTO WHAT COMMISSIONERS ARE WITH SAYING WITH THIS PARTICULAR WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT IS, THERE'S NO SET TIMELINE ON THIS, AND FOR ME THAT WAS IMPORTANT.
UH, WE'RE BASICALLY ALLOWING STAFF TO DETERMINE HOW LONG THEY NEED TO GET THIS DONE.
WE HAD PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT MOVING THIS FUNCTIONAL GRAIN OF PHASE TWO, BUT THERE IS A VERY LONG TIMELINE ON THAT.
SO MY HOPE IS THAT SINCE WE'VE PROVIDED THE LIST OF CRITERIA THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE BEFORE CONSIDERING FUNCTIONAL GREEN, UM, STAFF BASICALLY WILL GET THAT TO US, HOPEFULLY AS SOON AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN.
SO, UM, ADDITIONAL, ANY QUESTIONS WITH THE WORKING GROUP? UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, I THINK YOU MAY HAVE ANSWERED THIS ALREADY, BUT I JUST WANT TO, I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR WHERE WE'RE ASKING, UH, STAFF TO DO A LOT OF SPECIFIC THINGS.
AND I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THEY'VE HEARD ALL OF IT, THEY'VE RESPONDED TO ALL OF IT, THEY THINK IT'S DOABLE, AND THEY THINK IT'S DOABLE QUICKLY, IS DO I HAVE THAT CORRECT? UH, YES.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET AN ANSWER FROM STEP ON THAT SO WE CAN MAKE A DECISION.
UH, KATIE COIN ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, UH, WE'RE IN FULL SUPPORT.
WE WANT TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE.
A LOT OF THIS WORK IS WORK THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN STARTED COMPILED, UH, AND, AND WORK THAT WE WANT TO BUILD ON, UH, OR THAT WAS EVEN IN THE WORKS, UH, WHEN WE WERE TOLD PENCILS DOWN, UH, ON THIS PAST LDC DRAFT.
UH, SO, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY WORK THAT WE WANT TO CONTINUE DOING, AND I APPRECIATE THAT, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TANGIBLE ITEMS THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION TO BUILD TRUST WITH COMMUNITY AND, AND, AND DO THIS THE RIGHT WAY.
UM, SO NOW WE'RE IN, WE'RE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THAT AND APPRECIATE THE LACK OF TIMELINE.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE WANNA BRING THIS FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
IF I MIGHT JUST QUICKLY MENTION COMPUTER SCHNEIDER, WE, I CANNOT BEGIN TO TELL YOU HOW THANKFUL WE ARE WITH THE HELP STAFF HAS PROVIDED.
I'LL BE HONEST, A NUMBER OF THESE ITEMS STAFF HAD ALREADY EVEN RESPONDED TO, TO OUR WORKING GROUP.
WE JUST NEED TO SHARE THEM PUBLICLY AND MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ARE HEARD BECAUSE THEY'RE COMING UP.
AND OF COURSE, THERE'S OTHER ITEMS THAT I THINK ARE A LITTLE MORE COMPLEX.
AND THAT'S WHY IN SOME PLACES WE SAID AND ENGAGED STAKEHOLDERS, BECAUSE SOME OF OUR STAKEHOLDERS MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP US WITH SOME OF THOSE TECHNICAL ITEMS. BUT I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE HELP OF STAFF ON THIS.
I APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP AND, AND YOU AND STAFF AS WELL.
SO, UH, I'M NOT, UH, WE'RE GONNA KEEP THAT ITEM, WE'RE NOT GONNA PULL THAT FOR DISCUSSION.
GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE SECOND ONE.
YES, I, IF THE WORKING GROUP ACTUALLY WAS TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY DOING AN AMENDMENT TO THIS AMENDMENT AND I WASN'T SURE IF, IF THAT, IF THAT SHOULD BE AN INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT AND WE'LL JUST VOTE ON THAT, BUT AMENDS THIS AMENDMENT OR IF WE NEED TO PULL
[02:10:01]
IT TO AMEND IT? NO, IF WE'RE GONNA AMEND IT, WE SHOULD PROBABLY PULL IT.WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THAT QUICKLY, HOPEFULLY.
YES, IT IS A VERY SIMPLE THING.
IT WAS SORT OF A LATE CONSIDERATION OF THE WORKING GROUP.
AND SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND PULL THIS ITEM.
I, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION THAT ALLOWS A LITTLE, A LITTLE MORE TIME.
HOPEFULLY WE WON'T TAKE UP TOO MUCH TIME ON THAT ONE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO THE SECOND ONE IF YOU CAN.
COMMISSIONER ZA, UM, THANK YOU CHAIR.
AND I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED, UM, I'D REALLY WANNA THANK COMMISSIONER THOMPSON FOR LEAVING THE WORKING GROUP.
SADLY, HE'S A LITTLE UNDER THE WEATHER HERE TODAY, SO I'M TAKING OVER THIS WORD.
UM, SO THE SECOND ITEM WAS LOOKING AT THE MISSING MIDDLE, UM, SUB ITEM.
THIS IS SORT OF SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE ORDINANCE.
UH, WE'RE ASKING THAT WE DELAY ADOPTION OF THE MISSING MIDDLE SUB ITEM CONTAINED IN VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS OF THE OVERALL ORDINANCE FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED THROUGH A SEPARATE PROCESS THAT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL STAFF TEAMS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO HPD AND ATD, ALONG WITH CONDUCTING STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ON THE ITEM AND AN ASSESSMENT OF OTHER CODE CHANGES IN DEPARTMENT ACTIONS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS.
UM, AND SO THIS REALLY CAME FROM, WE WERE GETTING A LOT OF STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK FROM ALL SORT OF SECTORS THAT THERE WAS SOME CONCERN AROUND SOME OF THE SPECIFIC PIECES RELATED WITHIN THIS UNDERSTANDING THE OVERALL PROCESS.
PEOPLE REALLY WANT TO DO STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT, BOTH FROM THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AND ALSO THE FOLKS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.
SO THIS ESSENTIALLY TAKES OUT, THIS ITEM, PUTS IT IN SOMEWHAT OF SEPARATE PROCESS.
AGAIN, WE'RE NOT DEFINING THE TIMELINE FOR THIS.
UM, WE'RE LEAVING THAT TO STAFF AND IT'S A PROCESS WHEREBY WE CAN ENGAGE WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS AND LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE OTHER INCENTIVE PIECES.
SO THE TEXT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS WOULD BE, AGAIN, A STRIKE THROUGH OF THE RELEVANT SECTIONS, UM, JUST TO GIVE A CHANCE FOR US ALL TO ENGAGE DEEPLY IN THIS.
THANK YOU, UH, QUESTIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP? UH, YOU NEED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING.
COMMISSIONER ARD CHAIR, I'M REALIZING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT IN OUR RULES.
I'M SORRY IF I MIGHT RECOMMEND THIS, IF IT MAKES SENSE.
CAN WE HAVE A ONE MINUTE RESPONSE IN EACH WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT FROM STAFF? I THINK THAT WOULD HELP CLARIFY.
I WISH I THOUGHT OF THAT WORK.
SO ANY OPPOSITION TO ALLOWING STAFF A RESPONSE TIME AFTER WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION ON THE ITEM? I DON'T HEAR ANY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT PART OF OUR, OUR RULE CHAIR.
WHAT'S THE TIME? UH, A MINUTE.
LET'S DO ONE MINUTE AND IF NEEDED WE CAN.
NED, KATIE COHEN, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER.
UH, THIS ITEM IN PARTICULAR IS VERY COMPLEX AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT.
WE ARE IN FULL SUPPORT OF PUSHING THIS.
IT'S ONE OF THE, IT'S ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT REQUIRES THE MOST COLLABORATION FOR US WITH HOUSING AND PLANNING.
UH, AND SO IT MAKES COMPLETE SENSE TO US TO ROLL THAT INTO PHASE TWO, WHERE WE WERE ALREADY LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS TO OFFSET SOME OF THE UPDATES IN PHASE TWO.
SO LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM, WE HAVE A, OKAY, COMMISSIONER.
SO IS THIS LIKE THIS SECTION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHERE IT LIMITS LIKE 11 UNITS OR WHATEVER? I MEAN, IT, IT'S PULLED FROM A HAT, BUT AT LEAST CUZ I KEEP THINKING THERE'S STUFF LIKE SF SIX DEVELOPMENTS THAT IS DEFINITELY MISSING MIDDLE, BUT IT'S JUST NOT CALIBRATED IN THE SAME WAY OF JUST SAYING 11 UNITS.
IT'S UNITS PER ACRE THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER AND OKAY.
HONESTLY, THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED PIECE.
THERE WAS A LOT OF THINGS AROUND, UM, SITE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS, YOUR REQUIREMENTS,
SO IT'S, IT'S, WE WILL BE TAKING OUT ALL OF THOSE PIECES AND PUTTING THEM IN A SEPARATE PROCESS.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS INTERESTED TO ASK A QUESTIONS, MAKE A DECISION TO KEEP THIS ON CONSENT OR PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE GONNA LEAVE THAT ONE ON.
SO LET'S GO AND MOVE TO THE THIRD WORKING GROUP.
SO THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO 25 DASH TWO DASH 1 0 7, UM, SUBSECTION F SUBSECTION FOUR.
UM, WE'RE ASKING THAT IN PARKING LOT DESIGN, WE REQUIRED THAT A MINIMUM OF 50% OF STORM WATER RUNOFF BE FLOWED INTO LANDSCAPE AREA TO MEET ENVIRONMENTAL RUNOFF GOALS WHILE WORKING WITH EXISTING PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS.
AND WE DO HAVE A TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO THIS, UM, WHICH WOULD ESSENTIALLY CHANGE THAT, THAT BULLET FOUR DO MUST HAVE AN EDGE OF PAVEMENT TREATMENT THAT ALLOWS OVERLAND FLOW OF A MINIMUM 50% OF STORM WATER RUNOFF ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY TO THE COMMISSIONERS, THE REST OF THAT BULLET REMAINS AS STAFF, UM, WANTED.
AND THEN WE'VE ADDED IN THE UNDERLYING SECTION, WHICH IS OFTEN MINIMUM 50%.
AND THIS REALLY CAME UP BECAUSE THERE WAS A CHALLENGE THAT WE WERE HANGING FROM STAKEHOLDERS THAT THE CURRENT PARKING DESIGN, UM, HAS A, HAS AN ISSUE WHERE THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED, YOU CANNOT HAVE ALL OF YOUR FLOW GOING TO THOSE, UM, EDGE OF PAVEMENT
[02:15:01]
TREATMENTS UNLESS THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE WAY CURRENT, UH, PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS WORK.SO WHAT WE SAID IS THAT AT LEAST A MINIMUM 50% SHOULD BE HANDLED THIS WAY, ALLOWING SOME FLEXIBILITY TO MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS WHILE ALSO REALLY, UH, FORWARDING OUR ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS.
STAFF, DO YOU WANNA RESPOND TO THAT RECOMMENDATION? YEAH.
UM, SO EXISTING LANDSCAPE CODE DOES ALREADY HAVE A REQUIREMENT, UM, THAT, UH, 50% OF THE STORM WATER AND REQUIRED, UM, PARKING LOTS BE DRAINED TO PARKING ISLANDS, MEDIANS, PENINSULAS OR NATURAL AREAS.
UM, SO, AND THAT ALSO HAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE OPTION TO RE UM, IN CASES THAT ARE CONSTRAINED.
AND SO I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE BETWEEN WHAT IS EXISTING CODE AND WHAT THE INTENT OF THE AMENDMENT IS AT THIS POINT.
I THINK IT WOULD NEED MORE DISCUSSION AND MORE CONSIDERATION.
COMMISSIONERS, UH, ANY FOLLOW UP, DECIDE WHETHER KEEP THIS ONE ON OR PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION? I CHAIR I'D BE HAPPY TO PULL IT SO WE CAN HAVE A MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION WITH STAFF.
LET'S GO AND, UH, DISCUSS ITEM FOUR.
UM, THIS BRINGS US TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
UM, SO THIS IS LOOKING AT, UH, THE GREEN, UH, STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS THEY'RE REWARDING ON TONIGHT.
SO THE AMENDMENT READS, COSTS FOR BEING STRONG WATER INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITH 10% OR MORE INCOME RESTRICTED, AFFORDABLE UNITS OR MORE SHOULD BE OFFSET WITH DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES.
THIS DOES NOT HAVE A TEXT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AND ESSENTIALLY COMES FROM THE COST MITIGATION, UM, SUGGESTED BY OUR HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF AND OUR AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT.
SO THIS ESSENTIALLY COMES FROM THERE.
AND THIS WOULD BE LOOKING AT ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS A DENSITY BONUS OR OTHER REQUIREMENT.
WE WOULD BE SEEING THAT IF THEY'RE USING GSI, THEY WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER OTHER DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AS PART OF THIS RIGHT.
YOU WANNA GIVE A MINUTE TO RESPOND? SURE.
UH, KATIE COHEN, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, UH, I AM IN FULL SUPPORT OF, OF MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE USING INCENTIVES TO OFFSET COSTS, ESPECIALLY FOR THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
UH, I, MY ONLY CLARIFICATION QUESTION POTENTIALLY BACK TO YOU IS WHAT IS THE TIMELINE ON, UH, THAT DEVELOPMENT OF THAT DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE, UH, IN, DOES THAT DELAY APPLICATION OF CODE IN THE NEAR TERM? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WERE ALREADY PLANNING ON ROLLING INTO PHASE TWO MITIGATION.
UH, AND, AND SO IF WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT ON THAT SAME TIMELINE AS PHASE TWO, THEN, THEN CERTAINLY WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THAT AND HAD BEEN PLANNING ON DOING THAT ANYWAY.
I, I THINK, AGAIN, WE DID NOT DEFINE A TIME FOR THIS FOR STAFF TO CONSIDER IT, OR THE INTENT IS ESSENTIALLY TO GO AHEAD AND PASS THE GREEN STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE.
DO THEY CONSIDER THESE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT CAME FROM OUR AFFORDABLE TEAM BACK STATEMENT WITH THE HOPE THAT STAFF CAN AGAIN, BRING THEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE? PERFECT.
ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, WE'LL GO AND KEEP ITEM FOUR ON OUR CONSENT.
I'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
SO THIS IS, AGAIN, COMING FROM OUR AFFORDABLE IMPACT STATEMENT FROM OUR HPD STAFF AND RELATES TO, UM, NUMBER FOUR.
SO THIS WOULD BE LOOKING AT COST FOR GREEN STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED DEVELOPMENTS, OR ANY DEVELOPMENTS WITH 50% OR MORE INCOME RESTRICTED, AFFORDABLE UNITS SHOULD BE OFFSET WITH THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT COST SHARING PROGRAM.
I DO WANNA, AGAIN, CLARIFY THIS CAME FROM AFFORDABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT, AND I THINK IT WAS IMPLIED THAT THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN A CONVERSATION THAT THEY ALREADY HAD WITH OUR WATERSHED DEPARTMENT.
UM, AND JUST TO CLARIFY TO OUR COMMISSIONERS THAT THERE WAS THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN SPLITTING THEM DID NOT EXIST IN OUR AFFORDABLE IMPACT STATEMENT.
BUT THE WAY WE DID IT THIS WAY IS ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE THOSE, UM, UNITS THAT HAVE 10% AFFORDABLE UNITS, OR LESS THAN 50%, ESSENTIALLY, UM, THEY LARGELY CAN STILL HAVE MORE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AS A PART OF THEM.
THOSE THAT ARE 50% OR MORE ARE UNDER AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED IN, ACTUALLY ALREADY HAVE A LOT OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES MAXED OUT TO SAVE A FEW.
SO WE'D BE LOOKING AT SOME COST SHARING PROGRAM, PARTICULARLY SINCE A LOT OF THESE PROJECTS ARE, UM, SOMEHOW SUBSIDIZED TO THE CITY OR OTHER, UH, GOVERNMENT FUNDING.
AND AGAIN, IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY DECKS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
SO THE AIS ACTUALLY, UH, SPEAKS TO THIS DIRECTLY BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY CALLED IT OUT IN OUR, IN OUR EQUITY REVIEW.
UH, SO OUR INTERNAL, UH, EQUITY TEAM TALKED ABOUT DEVELOPING A COST SHARING PROGRAM.
UH, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS COME UP EVEN BEFORE WE WERE DIRECTED TO COME TO YOU WITH ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.
UH, JUST TO BE REALLY DIRECT, IT'S IN MY ANNUAL REVIEW WITH MY BOSS.
THIS IS ONE OF LIKE ONLY THREE OVERARCHING GOALS THAT I HAVE, IS TO DEVELOP A COST SHARING PROGRAM FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UH, AND SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY IN THE WORKS THAT
[02:20:01]
WE WANT TO SEE MOVE FORWARD, UH, AND, AND EVEN POTENTIALLY APPLY BEYOND JUST THE CARVE OUT THAT YOU'VE CALLED OUT HERE.COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, LOOKS LIKE THAT ONE'S GONNA STAY.
WE DON'T NEED TO PULL THAT FOR DISCUSSION.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE, UM, THIS BRINGS US TO OUR AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX, WHICH HERE IS NUMBER SEVEN.
WE HAD, WE WERE WORKING THROUGH OUR AMENDMENTS LAST SECOND.
SO THIS IS LOOKING AT, UM, SECTION 25 DASH, UH, EIGHT DASH 2 81 AND ESSENTIALLY ADDS THE ABILITY FOR THE DIRECTOR TO GRANT ADMINISTRATIVE VARIS TO REDUCE C F BUFFER BASED ON A CONSIDERATION OF TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND ECOLOGY.
SO LOOKING AT SOME OF THOSE, UM, CONCERNS AND, UH, LIMITATIONS THAT MIGHT EXIST.
THIS WOULD BE, UH, ADDING ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANTS TO THIS SECTION AND AGAIN, DOES NOT INCLUDE A, UM, TEXT AMENDMENT ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
AND REALLY THE IDEA BEHIND THIS WAS TO PROVIDE, UH, FLEXIBILITY AROUND SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A ALTERNATIVE PATH IF NECESSARY AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
UM, SO 25 8, 42 B FOUR ALREADY GRANTS STAFF THE ABILITY TO, UM, GRANT ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES FOR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES.
SO I DON'T, UM, I IT'S ALREADY THERE.
I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.
UM, MS. JOHNSON? SO CHAIR, I THINK HEARING, OH, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? THE CURRENT CODE ALREADY ALLOWS, UH, 25 8 42 B FOUR.
SO IT'S BEEN, UH, IT'S BEEN IN THE CODE FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS.
UH, THE ABILITY FOR STAFF TO NEGOTIATE CEO SETBACKS, UM, ADMINISTRATIVELY, IS THAT THROUGH LIKE A MITIGATION PROGRAM OR, UM, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE IS.
SO WETLANDS HAVE MITIGATION, UM, COMPONENTS, UM, SO MITIGATION ENHANCEMENT OR REPLACEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE.
WETLANDS ARE FAIRLY FLEXIBLE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CAVES OR SINKHOLES OR RIM ROCKS.
IT JUST, UH, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS, WHERE IT'S LOCATED IN ADJACENT, LIKE IT'S UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM OF THE DEVELOPMENT, FOR INSTANCE, UM, WHAT THE GEOLOGY IS, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S LIKELY TO, UM, YOU KNOW, AFFECT A SPRING, A HYDROLOGY, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO IT'S, IT'S REALLY CASE SPEC, A SPECIFIC MM-HMM.
UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND, AND OFFER TO PULL THIS ITEM SO THAT WE CAN JUST VERIFY THE DUPLICATION AND MAYBE DECIDE IT'S NOT NEEDED.
I, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT AND CONSIDERING IT IF WE CAN JUST, IF IT'S NOT NEEDED, THEN WE DON'T EVEN NEED TO BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION.
SO, UH, SOMEBODY CHECKED MY, UH, I HAVE THAT WE'RE GOING, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE GOING TO PULL ITEMS ONE.
YEAH, IT'S, WHAT'S LISTED IS SEVEN, BUT IT'S THE SIXTH ONE.
SO ARE WE GOOD WITH THAT? SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO THE DISCUSSION ON NUMBER ONE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND START THAT.
WE'RE GOING TO, UM, WE'VE ALREADY HAD KIND OF THE OVERVIEW, SO IT JUST, AGAIN, YOU DON'T, WE DON'T NEED TO USE THEM, BUT, UH, WE CAN GET INTO THE DETAILS.
THREE COMMISSIONERS ALLOW THREE MINUTES, AND, AND YOU CAN ASK STAFF, OTHER PC MEMBERS, WORKING GROUP, UH, FOLKS HERE, UH, THE SPEAKERS.
IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, UP TO YOU IF YOU HAVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND START ON NUMBER ONE.
UM, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION WE HAD ON THAT ONE? COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH, IT WASN'T A QUESTION.
IT WAS ACTUALLY KIND OF SOME LATE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN WORKING GROUP MEMBERS.
UM, AND JUST TO SHARE WITH THE REST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, THE VICE CHAIR IS SHARED WITH THE WORKING GROUP, UM, THE DESIGN COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO FUNCTIONAL GREEN, UM, WHICH IS WHAT THE WORKING GROUP'S AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE ADDRESSES.
AND, UM, THEY HAD FIVE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, FOR THE FUNCTIONAL GREEN.
UH, SOME OF THEM OVERLAP A LITTLE BIT WITH THE WORKING GROUP'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT THERE WERE NEW ITEMS THAT I JUST, THAT SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP POTENTIALLY ALL, I DON'T KNOW YET, UM, WANTED
[02:25:01]
TO, TO ADD TO OUR LIST FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE.AND I CAN READ REAL QUICK IF, IF THAT'S USED FOR, OR WAIT, IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.
WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD, LET'S GO AND GET THROUGH OUR QUESTIONS AND THEN WE'LL ENTERTAIN MOTIONS, UH, ANY OTHER Q AND A ON THIS FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
UM, THEN LET'S, UH, UH, MOTION HERE, UM, ON THIS ITEM.
YEAH, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AMEND AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO INCLUDE THE FIVE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DESIGN COMMISSION IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION 2 0 2 2 9 2 6 DASH SEVEN.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED TO READ THE FIVE OR IF THAT'S SUFFICIENT.
SO I'LL ASK THE BODY, DO WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THOSE OR, OR HAVE WE, UM, ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH GOING WITH THIS CITATION? OKAY.
I'M, I DON'T SEE ANYBODY OPPOSE THAT.
SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THIS MOTION? UH, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER ZA SECOND.
IT, UM, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER COPS? NO.
IF YOU READ THE FIVE, IT'S PRETTY SELF EXPLANATORY, AND I THINK IT JUST, IT JUST ADDS TO THE GENERAL NATURE OF OUR ORIGINAL WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT.
IT JUST ADDS A BIT MORE DETAIL.
TO MOVE THIS ONE LONG, ANYONE WANNA SPEAK FOR AGAINST THE AMENDMENT? I GUESS WE'RE GONNA VOTE FOR THE AMENDMENT.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT VOTES ON THE DIAS, THAT'S EVERYONE.
UH, AND NOW LET'S VOTE ON THE, UH, AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE WITH THE AS AMENDED.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
THOSE ON THE DIAS FOUR AND THOSE ON THIS SCREEN.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO, DO YOU HAVE, UH, SOMETHING YOU WANNA SAY, COMMISSIONER, I REALIZING WE, SOMEONE CRACKED ME AND I'M JUST LATE.
I THINK WE DID NOT VOTE ON OUR CONSENT WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
I THINK WE DID NOT TAKE A VOTE ON THOSE CHAIR.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO THIS, UH, NUMBER THREE.
SO LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM HERE, ANY, WE HAVE THREE SPOTS, THREE QUESTIONS.
AND WHAT WAS THE, UH, I GUESS SOMEBODY WANTED TO QUEUE UP KIND OF THE, WHY WE PULLED THIS SO WE CAN KIND OF REFRESH OUR MEMORY.
STAFF INDICATED THAT THIS WAS DUPLICATIVE.
UM, THE, THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE BASICALLY REQUIRED THAT ALL OF THE STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM PARKING AREAS, UH, BASICALLY BE BE OVERLAND FLOW INTO LANDSCAPE AREAS.
UM, WE HEARD FROM STAKEHOLDERS THAT THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT DOING THAT.
I'VE ACTUALLY DESIGNED MANY PARKING LOTS IN MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE.
UM, THIS IS A PRETTY COMMON LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT KIND OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY, UM, TO, TO PUT OVERLAND FLOW FROM PARKING LOTS THROUGH VEGETATED AREAS.
SO I, I GUESS FOR STAFF, IF YOU COULD JUST CLARIFY HOW, AND IF THIS IS DUPLICATIVE AND, AND IF, IF STAFF HAS ANY IDEAS FOR PROVIDING A BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY, BECAUSE ALL OF THE FLOW SEEMS VERY ABSOLUTE.
UM, AND THERE MAY BE UNIQUE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAKES THAT VERY DIFFICULT OR EXTREMELY COSTLY.
AND SO I'M CURIOUS IF STAFF HAS ANY IDEA TO ADD A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY TO THEIR ORIGINAL, UM, ORIGINAL ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.
SO, UM, JUST JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, WHAT OUR PROPOSAL IS IS TO REMOVE THE RECURRENT REQUIREMENT THAT 50% OF THE REQUIRED STORM WATER OR 50% OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA BE DRAINED TO THESE GREEN SPACES.
UM, BECAUSE IT'S JUST, IT'S A LAYER OF BUREAUCRACY THAT WE'RE HOPING TO REMOVE AND SIMPLIFY BY NOT HAVING A SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE MET.
UM, AND SO THE LANGUAGE MAY BE VAGUE, BUT, UM, THERE'S, THERE'S TWO COMPONENTS.
THERE'S CHANGES TO THE LANDSCAPE CODE AND THEN CHANGE CHANGES TO 25 A OVERLAND FLOW.
UM, THE LANGUAGE THAT WE PROPOSED
[02:30:01]
SAID, YOU KNOW, DIRECT STORM WATER TO THESE AREAS WERE FEASIBLE.AND SO I THINK THOUGH, WHERE FEASIBLE WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE THAT FLEXIBILITY, UM, BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE OPEN TO OTHER SUGGESTIONS IF, IF YOU WOULD, UH, IF, IF, UH, TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR THAT IT, IT'S DESIGNED TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE AND NOT AND LESS DESCRIPTIVE.
WELL, ANNETTE, AND IF I'M ALLOWED TO ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION CHAIR, THAT, THAT ACTUALLY BRINGS UP AN INTERESTING POINT BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF WHERE FEASIBLE IN THE AMENDED ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.
AND SO IF YOU COULD CLARIFY FOR US KIND OF THE PROCESS THAT STAFF GOES THROUGH TO DETERMINE WHETHER THINGS ARE FEASIBLE OR NOT, WHEN YOU REVIEW THESE SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS WELL, RIGHT, SO I MEAN, THE EASIEST ONE IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WOULD IT REQUIRE DIRECTING STORM WATER UPHILL, OBVIOUSLY, NO.
LIKE IF IT, IF WE HAVE TO LIKE, CHANGE THE WAY THE TOPOGRAPHY IS REALLY, UM, PROPOSED TO MAKE IT GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE ONE, ONE THING.
I THINK ALSO, UM, CUT AND FILL LIMITS WOULD BE, WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE IF WE HAVE TO, UM, IF, IF THE DESIGN WOULD TRIGGER AN ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE FOR CUT AND FILL, IF, UM, THERE ARE OTHER CONSTRAINTS, HERITAGE TREES, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT YOU DON'T WANNA DO A LOT OF GRADING AROUND, UM, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, OR THE QUANTITY OF VOLUME OF WATER WOULD GO TO A CERTAIN SPOT THAT WOULD CAUSE EROSION.
SO I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S VARIETY OF DIFFERENT, UM, FACTORS THAT COULD CAUSE IT TO BE DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT.
UH, COMMISSIONERS WITH ADDITIONAL, UH, COMMISSIONER DESIRE, UM, I JU THANK YOU MS. JOHNSON FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
I THINK THAT THAT DOES CLARIFY.
I'M TRYING TO SEE, I GUESS I THINK FOLKS MIGHT BE MISREADING THAT PIECE OF THE CODE AND I'M WONDERING, I'M GONNA JUST THROW IT OUT THERE AND JUST SEE IF YOU CAN HELP ME SHAPE THIS AMENDMENT.
SO CURRENTLY I'M READING THE TOP PARTS THAT SAYS PART ONE SUBSECTION IS AMENDED TO READ A LANDSCAPE AREA THAT IS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION MUST HAVE AN EDGE OF PAVEMENT TREATMENT.
COULD WE CHANGE IT TO, MUST CONSIDER AN EDGE OF, WOULD THAT STILL BE WITHIN THE INTENT OF WHAT YOU ALL WERE CONSIDERING? I THINK THAT WOULD BE FINE.
UM, I WOULD WANT TO, UM, VERIFY WITH DSE D STAFF FIRST.
UM, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE, UM, THE LEAD OVER OR THE LANDSCAPE PORTION OF THIS.
BUT I WOULD, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE FINE.
SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE FOR US TO SAY THE LANDSCAPE AREA THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE SECTION MUST CONSIDER AN EDGE OF PAVEMENT TREATMENT.DOT.
UM, AND JUST TO CLARIFY THAT SO THAT OUR INTENTION IS THERE, THE INTENTION HERE WOULD BE TO SAY THAT WE'RE NOT REQUIRING THAT ALL OF THE OVERFLOW GOING TO THE GREEN SPACES BECAUSE THAT WAS THE CONCERN THAT WE WERE HEARING THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE CHANGE.
UM, I THINK, I HONESTLY, I THINK I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE, WHICH IS TO SAY WE'RE NOT SAYING HOW MUCH CUZ IT ADDS MORE FLEXIBILITY.
SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S THERE, BUT MAKE SURE THAT THE LANGUAGE REFLECTS THAT IN HAND.
SO WE WOULD SAY, MUST CONSIDER, I MIGHT JUST MAKE THAT MOTION AFTER THIS.
UM, WOULD THE, WOULD THIS CLARIFICATION PROVIDED THE IDEA IS TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY, NOT, NOT PRESCRIBING, NOT MAKE IT SUCH THAT NOBODY HAS TO COMPLY WITH THIS, RIGHT? YES.
SO, BUT WE STILL BE COMPLYING, BUT THEY WOULD BE FLEXIBILITY.
SO Y'ALL CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT DSD IN LAW, WHAT MIGHT BE THE BEST LANGUAGE.
BUT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION, UH, JUST TO MOVE IT ALONG.
SO THE PRESCRIPTIVE 50% IS REMOVED TO LAW FLEXIBILITY.
SO THE AMENDMENT, AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT IN A SECOND AND CLARIFY WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, BUT, UH, I'LL STOP HERE.
YEAH, LET'S, UH, SOUNDS LIKE WE GOT SOME A MOTION BREWING HERE IF THAT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND LET, UH, WE HAVE ONE SPOT FOR ONE MORE COMMISSIONER IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF WORKING GROUP OR STAFF.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION YOU WANNA PROPOSE? SURE, SURE.
SO THIS WOULD BE AN ALTERNATE TO NUMBER THREE.
UM, UM, AND IT WOULD CHANGE BOTH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND THEN ALSO THE, THE PROPOSED EXCHANGE.
I'LL FOCUS ON THE PROPOSED CHECK EXCHANGE FIRST.
SO WOULD SAY, MUST CONSIDER AN EDGE OF PAVEMENT TREATMENT THAT ALLOWS OVERLAND FLOW OF STORM WATER RUNOFF ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE.
SO THE UNDERLYING PART THAT WE WERE ADDING OF A MINIMUM 50% WOULD BE REMOVED AND INSTEAD OF THE WORD HAVE, WE WOULD STRIKE THAT OUT AND ADD THE WORD CONSIDER.
AND THEN, UM, UM, AND WHEN WE WOULD SAY IN PARKING FOR THE PROPOSED TEXT AND MAKING THIS ON THE SPOT IN PARKING LOT DESIGN, CONSIDER STORM WATER RUNOFF, UM, TO BE FLOWED INTO LANDSCAPE AREA.
SO AGAIN, THAT MINIMUM 50% WOULD BE REMOVED AND HOPEFULLY STAFF GETS THEIR INTENT.
IT'S NOT TO BIND THE DEVELOPER, BUT ALSO NOT TO COMPLETELY NEGATE THIS PIECE OF THE CODE, BUT TO PROVIDE THAT FLEXIBILITY THAT IT SEEMS LIKE WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THIS MOTION COMMISS? SURE.
UH, WE NEED ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? ANY THOSE IN FAVOR?
[02:35:01]
UH, COMMISSAR IN FAVOR.UM, YOU GUYS WE'RE MOVING ON A VOTE.
UH, ANYBODY WANNA SPEAK TO THE MOTION? I JUST WANNA GIVE ANYBODY A CHANCE ONCE I WE'RE READY TO VOTE.
THAT'S EVERYONE DOES VIRTUAL SPACE.
THAT'S GOT EVERYBODY, AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE.
I THINK THAT'S THE LAST ONE FOR DISCUSSION.
ITEM SIX SHOWN AS IT SHOWN AS ITEM SEVEN, BUT IT'S OUR SIX WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT.
UM, WANNA GO AND QUEUE THIS UP? UH, SOUND LIKE STAFF THINKS THIS IS ALREADY IN THE CODE.
UM, LET'S MAYBE START WITH STAFF.
UH, DO YOU WANNA HAVE A LITTLE MORE EXPLANATION? IS THAT COMMISSION OKAY WITH THAT? OKAY.
LET'S GIVE STAFF A LITTLE TIME TO QUEUE THIS UP FOR US.
SO 25 8 42, UM, IS WHERE ALL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANT CHAPTER 25 8 ARE HELD.
UM, SO THERE'S A SECTION, THE FIRST PART SAYS WHAT CODE SECTIONS ARE ALLOWED TO BE WAIVED OR, UM, ADMINISTRATIVELY BURIED.
AND THEN D HAS CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOME OF THOSE.
UM, SO FOR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, IT, UM, IT JUST SAYS THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
AND THEN THE, THE FINDINGS SAY THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE THAT THE PROPOSED MEASURES PRESERVE CHARACTERISTICS OF, OR ALL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL HAS FURTHER, UM, DISCUSSION ABOUT WHEN VARIANCES SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE.
UM, GRANTED ADMINISTRATIVELY FOR CARC RECHARGE FEATURES, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, THE ECM SAYS, YOU, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULDN'T ALLOW THOSE WITHIN 50 FEET OF A CAVE, FOR EXAMPLE.
UM, WETLAND MITIGATION, AS I MENTIONED, IS NOT, IS NOT ACTUALLY A VARIANCE AT ALL.
IT'S JUST PART OF WHAT CODE ALLOWS.
UM, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S JUST ADMINISTRATIVE WITHOUT A VARIANCE.
SO, UM, IT'S BEEN PART OF THE CODE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
QUESTIONS FROM, UH, COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONER? SHE, SO I WANNA UNDERSTAND, LIKE YOU SAID, THE WETLAND STUFF IS PART OF CODE, BUT IT'S STILL PART OF A VARIANCE THAT, RIGHT, RIGHT.
SO 20, SO IN A DIFFERENT SECTION, THE 25 8, UM, 2 82 TALKS ABOUT WETLANDS SPECIFICALLY.
AND IT HAS A VARIETY OF THINGS, YOU KNOW, THAT THE DIRECTOR MAY, UM, UH, ALLOW REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF A WETLAND OR MITIGATION.
AND SO THOSE, THAT SECTION JUST SAYS, YOU KNOW, STAFF HAVE THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE WHAT THAT MITIGATION OR REPLACEMENT OR WHATEVER LOOKS LIKE.
IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT A VARIANCE AT ALL.
CAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WASN'T THAT PART BEING STRUCK, STRUCK OUT.
UH, THERE WAS, UM, I MEAN KIND OF SIMPLIFYING THAT, WHERE REMOVING THE EXPLICIT ALLOWANCE FOR, UH, WATER QUALITY PONDS TO SERVE AS WETLANDS, UM, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF CRITERIA GET DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE, THE WAY THE CODE IS, WE'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE THE CODE DESCRIBE OR WRITTEN AND HOW STAFF HAVE ALREADY BEEN USING THIS SECTION OF THE CODE, THAT WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT IF WE, UM, FELT IT APPROPRIATE.
CUZ I, SORRY, I'M REALLY CONFUSED.
CAUSE IT'S LIKE, I, I THOUGHT I SAW THAT PART WAS BEING STRUCK OUT CUZ AND NOW MY BRAIN'S ALL LIKE ONE SECTIONS COULD ANOTHER AND THAT'S CONNECTED TO ANOTHER.
I'M LIKE TRYING TO KEEP TRACKING.
I'M TRYING TO FIND WHERE IT'S AT, BUT THIS IS COMPLICATED.
LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND IT ON THE, UH, ORDINANCE.
CAUSE I THOUGHT I SAW WHAT YOU JUST SAID WITH LINE, LINE THROUGH IT.
UM, IT MIGHT, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S GETTING KIND OF REORGANIZED.
2 82, UM, DIRECTOR OF WE WATERSHED PROGRAM MAY WAS, YOU KNOW, APPROVED REPLACEMENT OF A, HUH.
IT'S LINE 1436 CROSSES OUT THE, UH, YEAH.
SO IS IT PART OF IT? SO YEAH, B AHEAD ABOVE THAT, UM, IT, SO C HAS CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE'RE KIND OF FUNCTIONING, WE'RE PUTTING INTO B, SO PROTECTION METHODS FOR WETLANDS, AND THEN WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADD, REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR AND MAY INCLUDE APPROPRIATE SETBACKS THAT PRESERVE THE WETLANDS OR THE WETLAND FUNCTIONS, WETLAND MITIGATION, INCLUDING WETLAND REPLACEMENT OR WETLAND RESTORATION OR ENHANCEMENT.
UM, WE BELIEVE THAT THAT COVERS IT.
SO IT COVERS C IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? RIGHT.
SO IT, IT, SO B BASICALLY, SO C ONE SAYS THE, THE DIRECTOR OF WATERSHED PROTECTION MAY APPROVE THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF A WETLAND.
SO, UM, B WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADD TO THE EXISTING SECTION IS THAT PROTECTION METHODS FOR WETLANDS REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR AND MAY INCLUDE SETBACKS, WETLAND
[02:40:01]
MITIGATION, INCLUDING REPLACEMENT OR RESTORATION OR ENHANCEMENT.SO C1 IS BASICALLY DUPLICATIVE OF WHAT B WOULD BE SAYING.
SO IT, IT, IT DIDN'T REALLY, OKAY.
SO MY QUESTION THEN IS WHAT ABOUT THE MERITS OF A C OR WETLAND? RIGHT, BECAUSE I'VE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IN REACHING OUT TO THE COMMUNITIES, THERE'S CONCERNS, LIKE THERE HAS BEEN MANMADE WETLANDS, LIKE THERE WAS A LEAKY, UH, DRAINAGE THING AND IN THE END IT WAS DEEMED A C WHEN IT WAS A CITY THAT HAD A LEAK AND A PIPE THAT SOMETHING ENDED UP HAVING PLANTS HERE AND THEY ENDED UP HAVING TO OFFSET FROM IT.
IT TOOK OUT LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, LIKE 15, I DON'T KNOW, 12 UNITS OR SOMETHING.
AND IT'S LIKE IT WAS A MANMADE THING.
AND THEN I HEARD THERE WAS A DETENTION POND ISSUE THAT WAS, HAD WATER IN IT AND THEN THEY DEEMED IT AS A CF BECAUSE THERE WAS CERTAIN ECOLOGY OF PLANTS ON IT.
AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY HAVE TO OFFSET FROM THAT.
AND THESE ARE MANMADE THINGS BASED UPON WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR DEVELOPMENT.
NOW WE JUST, SO THAT'S A CASE WE'RE GONNA END UP KEEPING, MAKING CEOS ALL OVER WHENEVER WE HAVE A DETENTION POND.
SO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL ALSO REAL QUICK, SORRY, JUST KEEP IN LINE, UH, WE'RE GONNA LET IT, UH, COMMISSIONER ARD TAKE, I'M GONNA TAKE HER THE QUESTION.
UM, MS. JOHNSTON, CAN YOU PLEASE JUST BOND TO THAT? OKAY.
UM, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL DOES HAVE, UM, DOES CLARIFY THAT CERTAIN SITUATIONS DO NOT CONS CONSTITUTE C WETLAND CFS.
ONE IS, UM, LIKE BROKEN PIPES.
SO I, MAYBE IT WAS A STORM PIPE OR SOMETHING.
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT YOUR SITUATION IS, BUT LIKE IF IT WERE A LEAKING IRRIGATION PIPE, FOR EXAMPLE, OR WATER PIPE, THAT DEFINITELY WOULD NOT COUNT AS A C, UM, FOR, UM, LIKE DETENTION PONDS, UM, I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THOSE THAT PONDS THEMSELVES DO NOT, UM, TRIGGER C E FS LIKE DETENTION PAWS DO.
SOMETIMES THE OUTFALLS MAY EVENTUALLY CAUSE WETLANDS TO OCCUR AND COULD BE AN ISSUE DURING REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY.
UM, AND WE SOMETIMES ARE, WE SOMETIMES TALK TO OUR MAINTENANCE CREWS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE BEST WAY TO MAINTAIN IT SO THAT IT DOESN'T OBSTRUCT FLOW BUT STILL ALLOWS VEGETATION TO CONTINUE.
SO FOLLOW IF YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP.
YEAH, I GUESS MY CONCERN IS THEN WE KEEP PROPAGATING THESE CES WHENEVER WE DEVELOP THAT AND HENCE THE WHOLE ASPECT OF A DIRECTOR.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PUT IT IN THERE BECAUSE IS IT A VARIANCE FROM IT OR DO WE REDEFINE WHAT CFS ARE? BECAUSE IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THEY, THERE'S DEFINITELY BEEN AN ISSUE CUZ I'VE TALKED WITH SOME CIVIL ENGINEERS THAT WITH THESE TWO INSTANCES AND I'M LIKE, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? YOU KNOW, THESE ARE ALL, YOU KNOW, A UH, A REASON BEHIND, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT HAPPENED THAT DEVELOPMENT WATER DRAINED OUT, CREATE A CF AND THEN THERE WAS A LEAKY STORM WHATEVER PIPE THING AND THEN THEY HAD TO OFFSET FROM THAT.
I'M LIKE, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
AND, AND IF WE KEEP BUILDING DETENTION PONDS AND THERE'S OUTFALL, THERE COULD BE A CERTAIN H YOU KNOW, HYDRAULIC PLANT THAT'S GONNA EXIST AND IT BECOMES A CEO AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE PROBLEMS CONTINUE WITH DEVELOPMENT UNLESS THERE'S A WAY TO ADDRESS THINGS LIKE THIS.
SO WETLANDS SERVE A VARIETY OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE COM IN THE ENVIRONMENT THAT, UM, WHEN A DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS, WHAT THE EXISTING, THE SOIL THAT WAS THERE THAT WOULD'VE, UM, PROVIDED THOSE SAME TYPES OF, UM, SERVICES, UM, ISN'T AVAILABLE.
AND SO MANMADE WETLANDS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED WETLANDS AND CHANGING THE DEFINITION WOULD BE A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT THING FOR US, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S JUST BASED ON A COUPLE OF, UM, INSTANCES THAT WE WOULD, WE HAVEN'T EVALUATED YET.
SO I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD JUST HAVE A FEW SECONDS.
IF I CAN QUICKLY ASK, WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH US JUST MOVING AHEAD WITH THE REDUNDANT AMENDMENT, KNOWING THAT Y'ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT THE INTENT IS, MAYBE RESOLVE IT ON THE BACK END WITH LAW? WOULD Y'ALL BE OKAY WITH THAT? KEEPING THE, SO WE PASSED THE AMENDMENT AS IS WITH YOU UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE INTENTION WAS AROUND ADMINISTRATIVE VARIS.
UM, AND Y'ALL CAN CONSIDER IF IT'S REDUNDANT THEN IT DOESN'T APPLY.
BUT IF IT IS, IF NEEDS TO BE APPLIED, THEN YOU CAN CONSIDER WITH LAW.
IS THAT OKAY? SURE, YEAH, THAT'S, YEAH.
UM, SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I THINK WE HAVE ROOM FOR ONE MORE.
WE CAN, WE CAN MODIFY OUR RULES IF WE GOT MORE.
WE'RE DOING WELL UNTIL, SORRY, I HAD SOME CONCERN CUZ I WAS LOOKING OVER THIS IN, UH, 42 B TWO C.
THERE ARE A COUPLE, IT'S NOT JUST THAT ONE.
THERE ARE A COUPLE PLACES WHERE IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE THE DIRECTOR'S HANDS MIGHT BE TIED ON WHAT ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE HE COULD OR COULDN'T OR THEY COULD OR COULDN'T GIVE.
[02:45:02]
I'M NOT CONVINCED IT'S 100% DUPLICATE.I THINK YOU'RE GONNA RUN INTO PROBLEMS WHERE, UH, LET'S SEE, SECTION TWO WHERE LIKE, UH, 25 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THE WATERWAY, THAT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE DEVELOPMENT, NOT CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE, NOT CDF, RIGHT? SO THAT'S ALL THAT APPLIES TO, RIGHT? THAT'S SECTION 25 8 2 61.
AND SO THERE ARE CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHEN WE WOULD BE ABLE, WHEN THE CODE WOULD ALLOW STAFF TO GRANT THOSE TYPES OF VARIANCES AND IT REFERENCES CS.
SO IF IT'S, YEAH, NO, 2 81 AND 2 82 ARE SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED, CORRECT.
SO IF, IF, IF IT DOES NOT, SO THAT CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE VARIANCE WOULD NOT, WE COULDN'T DO IT ADMINISTRATIVELY IF IT INCREASED NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE C E F.
SO THAT'S A CONDITION ASSOCIATED WITH A DIFFERENT CODE SECTION APPROVALS.
BUT A IS UNDER 2 61, RIGHT? 25.
SO YEAH, I I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT YOU'RE SEEING, BUT UH, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR WITH THE AMENDMENT FOR, WHAT IS IT, LINE 1377, WHICH IS, THAT IS TO 25 8 281.
SO THEN IT IS, IT IS THAT LAST ONE.
TURN THE BOTTOM, THE UNDER SEA.
SO, SO IT IS SAYING THAT WE CAN GRANT A VARIANCE TO CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, BUT THEN THERE ARE CONDITIONS THAT ARE LISTED AND IF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET, THEN WE CAN'T AND ONE OF THOSE IS RELATED TO CS.
SO IT'S NOT BLANKET THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING.
ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU GUYS WERE LOOKING FOR WAS KIND OF, OR DID Y'ALL STILL WANT THE SAME KIND OF RESTRICTIONS? I GUESS WE WANTED CERTAIN FLEXIBILITY FOR THAT, FOR THAT DISCUSSION, BUT IF IT WAS TOO PRESCRIPTIVE AND IT, AND IT LIMITED THE DIRECTOR OF, UH, I DUNNO TO APPROACH IT A CERTAIN WAY, YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, IF, IF IT IS A MANMADE PIECE AND WE FOUND THAT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED OR SOMETHING, BUT IT EXISTED.
BUT IF YOU RECTIFY IT, THEN IT'S GONE, YOU KNOW, BUT THEN YET YOU'RE STILL HAVING TO OFFSET FROM IT.
THERE'S A LOT OF CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE THREE OR FOUR STEPS DOWN THE ROAD IF YOU FIX SOMETHING, IS IT STILL THERE OR NOT? I MEAN, CUZ CEOS CAN CHANGE IT COULD EXIST THEN DOESN'T EXIST IF IT'S, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS REQUIRED TO BE FIXED OR WHATEVER.
SO LET'S DO THIS, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, LET'S JUST, UH, MODIFY RULES JUST SLIGHTLY.
LOOKS LIKE WE STILL HAVE QUESTIONS.
SOME, I'M GONNA ALLOW A FEW MORE ON THIS ONE.
I SEE COMMISSIONER OF COX, YOU WANNA ADD TO THE CONVERSATION? YEAH, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY.
SO, UM, I JUST HAD A PROJECT NOT TOO RECENTLY THAT GOT FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES.
WE'VE TRIED TO FIND CREATIVE WAYS TO DO IT.
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIS COULDN'T DO THAT, SO WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE FORMAL VARIANCE PROCESS THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
AND ZAP, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT STAFF WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT, ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES, ALL OF THESE OTHER ITEMS THAT MAY BE BEYOND THE PURVIEW AND THE CODE RIGHT NOW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE, APPLICANTS CAN STILL REQUEST A VARIANCE AND GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO ANYTHING IN 25 8 EXCEPT FOR THE SAVER SPRINGS ORDINANCE CAN BE VARIED.
AND NOW THAT, NOW THAT WE'RE GETTING INTO THE, THE NITTY GRITTY OF THIS, I DO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THE, THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENT WAS SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT C BUFFERS, UM, AND WE TALKED ABOUT CONSIDERATION OF TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND ECOLOGY.
AND IT, AND IT DOES SOUND LIKE THAT THE, THAT THE APPROVAL OF DIRECTOR MAY INCLUDE APPROPRIATE SETBACKS, DOES SEEM TO ADDRESS THAT.
UM, SO I KIND OF DO FEEL LIKE IT'S DUPLICATIVE IF WE START GETTING INTO THE DEFINITION OF WHAT CFS ARE.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS WELL BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE DISCUSSED AS A WORKING GROUP AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF, OF THESE PARTICULAR CODE AMENDMENTS, BUT THAT'S JUST ME.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? UM, CHAIR FINE BY MAKE A MOTION AND I'LL SPEAK TO YOU IN A SECOND.
ADD ABILITY FOR DIRECTOR TO GRANT ADMINISTRATIVE VARIS TO REDUCE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE CF BUFFER BASED ON A CONSIDERATION OF TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND ECOLOGY.
AND I CAN SPEAK TO IT SO WE HAVE A SECOND.
OH, WE HAVE COMMISSION SAY SECOND.
SENSE YOU AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION.
[02:50:01]
UM, SO I THINK OUR STAFF IS VERY CLEARLY TOLD US THAT THAT IS INDEED WHAT IS IN THE CODE TODAY.SO THIS MIGHT BE REDUNDANT, BUT JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CAPTURED, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PASS IT AND STAFF CAN GO BACK AND, UM, RUN IT AGAINST WHAT'S IN THE WORKS AND WHAT IS THERE TODAY AND RUN IT PAST LAW TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR BASES ARE COVERED.
THIS WOULD JUST BE AN ACTION TO ENSURE THAT THE INTENT OF THE BODY IS CAPTURED AND HONESTLY JUST TO MOVE THE CONVERSATION ALONG.
ANY ISSUES OPPOSED IN FAVOR? WHAT? I GUESS SPEAKING IN FAVOR.
ANYBODY WANNA SPEAK? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO A VOTE.
I THINK WE'RE EAGER TO MOVE THIS ALONG.
COMMISSION LADIES ON ANDREW, WHO WAS THE SECOND ON THAT AMENDMENT? SAME AS COMMISSIONER SHAY.
UH, THOSE IN FAVOR ON THE DIAS? THAT'S FOUR FIVE.
WE HAVE MOVED THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
WE NEED A FINAL VOTE TO VOTE ON THE, UH, BASE MOTION AS AMENDED INDIVIDUAL MOTION.
I'M TRYING TO GET US OUTTA HERE TOO SOON.
SO YES, WE NOW WE'LL MOVE THROUGH ANY INDIVIDUAL EMOTIONS, UM, COMMISSIONERS HAVE, AND SO RELATE I WE DON'T REALLY WANNA REHASH OLD TERRITORY, BUT IF WE HAVE SOMETHING UNIQUE AND THAT ADD TO THE CONVERSATION HERE, I'M JUST GONNA GO.
UH, AND UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NO.
UM, GERALD, HOLD OFF ON A SECOND AS WELL AND SEE.
OTHERS HAVE IT, BUT LET THEM KNOW.
COMMISSIONER COXS, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER FLORES? UH, VICE CHAIR HEMPLE? NONE.
UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD? NONE.
COMMISSIONER SNYDER, ANYTHING INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS? NO.
UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMISSIONER SHA.
YEAH, I HAVE, UM, THE, THE, WE HAD A LIST OF STUFF THAT THE WORKING GROUP WAS TRYING TO GET TO, AND SO I HAVE THE OTHER ONES THAT WERE THERE THAT I'D PUT FORWARD, BUT IT'S JUST, WE HAD OUR WORKING GROUP HAS WORKED REALLY HARD,
AND, AND PUT TOGETHER A LOT OF TIME.
AND SO, UM, THE LAST MEETING WE HAD, IT WAS JUST COMMISSIONER COX AND I WERE LIKE, WELL, OKAY.
BUT ANYWAY, SO WE COULD JUST KIND OF MOVE THROUGH THESE OTHER ONES THAT I HAD PUT IN FRONT OF THE, UH, THE WORKING GROUP, BUT WE, WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO GET TO IT.
SO PROCESS IS, ARE YOU, UH, LET'S JUST, LET ME JUST CHECK.
TOM, DO WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON AND OTHERS MAKE WE STILL, AS YOU HEAR THESE, YOU MAY HAVE OTHERS? COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, DID YOU HAVE ANY? NO.
SO, UM, WHAT WE HAVE NOW, NOT, WE MIGHT GO AROUND OTHERS THAT MAY SPARK SOME IDEAS, BUT FOR NOW YOU'RE GONNA BE LEADING THESE OTHER, READING THESE AMENDMENTS.
I'LL JUST KIND OF GO THROUGH THIS LIST THAT WE'VE, WE'VE HAD WE'RE THAT WE DIDN'T TO, SO LET'S START, UH, LIKE WE DID BEFORE, UH, YOU JUST READ IT AND THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH THREE OF THREE AND THEN MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE AFTER, UH, WE'LL MOVE THROUGH THESE INDIVIDUALLY.
SO, UM, 25 8, 2 5, UH, IT'S A SECTION THAT SAYS ABOUT DO NOT GENERATE DOES NOT GENERATE MORE THAN 2000 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY ABOVE THE ESTIMATED TRAFFIC LEVEL.
UM, SO WHAT, THIS IS WHAT, WHAT THE PROPOSAL WAS TO NOT STRIKE OUT THE VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY BECAUSE THAT WAY IT ALLOWS SMALLER REDEVELOPMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT WITHOUT HAVING TO INCUR ALL THESE ADDITIONAL, UM, WHATEVER, UH, UPGRADES TO, UH, WHATEVER THE STORM WATER SYSTEM IS.
SO THAT'S SECTION 25, 8 25, REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION IN URBAN AND SUBURBAN.
AND AGAIN, THERE CURRENTLY THERE'S, UH, A TRIP, UH, TRIGGER AND THEY'RE REMOVING THE TRIP TRIGGER.
SO THAT'S, THAT IS THE, OH, NO.
SO STAFF WANTS TO REMOVE THE 2000 TRIPS, OR IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S 10 TRIP, FIVE TRIPS OR WHATEVER.
SO IF YOU'RE REDEVELOPING, UM, AND YOU GO, UH, WELL IF YOU REDEVELOPING, YOU HAVE TO MEET ALL ASPECTS OF NEW CODE.
WHEREAS IF IT'S A SMALL DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT, THEN IT USED TO ALLOW IT TO GO FORWARD.
SO, I DON'T KNOW, STAFF CAN KIND OF CLARIFY THIS.
SINCE WE'RE HEARING THESE FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE'LL GIVE, IF THERE'S NO OPPOSITION, WE'LL GIVE STAFF A MINUTE TO RESPOND TO THESE.
FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
AND THERE ARE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE MET IN ORDER TO MEET THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
AND I THINK MAYBE THERE WAS SOME MISUNDERSTANDING ON WHAT THE VEHICLE TRIP
[02:55:01]
LIMIT WAS, IS THAT SITES WITH GREATER THAN 2000 VEHICLE TRIPS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MEET THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.AND SO THIS JUST REMOVES LIKE, IT, IT JUST DOESN'T, WE WOULD SAY IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE RE THE VEHICLE TRIP IS, ANY PROJECT THAT MEETS THESE OTHER CONDITIONS WOULD BE ABLE TO, UM, MEET THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
IT KIND OF REMOVES SOMETHING, UM, THAT HAS PREVENTED SOME MORE DENSE PROJECTS FROM, UH, UH, MAKING USE OF THIS EXCEPTION.
I GUESS I, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING,
SO, SO IS IT TWO, SO MAKING IT EASIER SO YOU'RE MAKING IT EASIER BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER PROVISIONS.
CUZ THAT'S A THING I DON'T WANNA END UP HINDERING.
THE, THE ASPECT WAS NOT TO RE HINDER REDEVELOPMENT OF SMALL USES.
AND SO REMOVING IT ACTUALLY HELPS, HELPS OTHER PROJECTS THAT WOULD GENERATE MORE THAN 2000 VEHICLE TRIPS.
SO LIKE WE'VE SEEN IT WITH, UM, APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT ARE COMING IN AND LIKE CHANGING THE USE THAT VEHICLE TRIP LIMIT CAN BE HIT PRETTY QUICKLY AND THEN THEY CAN'T USE THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD, UH, WE'VE FRAMED IT, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF HAS MORE TO SAY, BUT LET'S PUT THAT FORWARD IN OUR THREE OF THREE.
SO, UH, WHO WANTS TO STAFF LOOKS LIKE MM-HMM.
UM, ALRIGHT, SO COMMISSION, UH, FINISHER CUTS.
WELL, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.
SO, SO THE INTENT OF THE STAFF CHANGES WAS TO JUST NOT, NOT CONSIDER VEHICLE TRIPS AT ALL AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION.
SO DO WE NEED ANY, UH, IS THERE AN AMENDMENT HERE, DO YOU THINK? I MEAN, I, I'M OKAY WITH IT UNLESS, LIKE SAID IF THERE'S OTHER, ANYBODY ELSE WHO MIGHT, I DON'T KNOW, WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT, BUT OTHERWISE I'M OKAY.
WELL, WE CAN, OTHERS HAVE A CHANCE THEY WANT TO PROPOSE SOMETHING.
UH, BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO YOUR NEXT ONE.
IS THIS, WHAT IS THIS? THIS IS REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION IN THE WATER SUPPLY RULE IN WATER SUPPLY SUBURBAN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, UH, UNDER FOUR SECTION, UM, 4 0 9.
CITY COUNCIL SHALL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING FACTORS IN DETERMINE WHETHER TO APPROVE OR PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT BENEFITS, REDEVELOPMENT TO THE COMMUNITY, WHETHER PROPOSED MITIGATION OR MANNER OF RE OF DEVELOPMENT OFFSETS POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT EFFECTS OF OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO THE, WHAT I WAS SAYING IS NOT TO STRIKE IT OUT BECAUSE IT ALLOWS, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, IT ALLOWS COUNCIL TO STILL REACT TO IT.
AND I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE REMOVAL OF HAVING THAT DISCUSSION IS WHY, WHY ARE WE REMOVING THAT OUT OF THE DISCUSSION LETTING COUNCIL OR PUBLIC WAY IN? AND WHICH, UM, WHICH PAGE IS THAT AGAIN? I'M TRYING, IT'S 25 8, 27.
UM, I THINK THAT THE INTENT WAS TO NOT REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL, UM, APPROVAL FOR THESE TYPES OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AT ALL FOR WATER SUPPLY, RURAL AND WATER SUPPLY SUBURBAN.
UH, WE HAVE HAD, UM, VERY FEW REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION PROJECTS IN THESE AREAS.
AND SO I THINK THE INTENT, AND THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS PROPOSED WITH THE LDC REWRITE, WAS TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT, REMOVE SOME OF THE BURDEN OR THE BUREAUCRACY FROM THESE TO MAKE IT INCENTIVIZE THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE.
BECAUSE WHAT? THEY HAVEN'T BEEN USED VERY MUCH.
SO I SEE, SO THE INTENT WAS ACTUALLY TO STREAMLINED EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMED LIKE WE'RE REMOVING THE POWER, WE JUST MAKE IT SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS? CORRECT.
ALL RIGHT, SO SHE HAS A QUESTION.
SO IF WE REMOVE THAT AS A REQUIREMENT, AND LET'S SAY APPLICANT IS NOT AN AGREEMENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL OR WHOEVER'S OVERSEEING THAT, DO THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO TAKE IT FORWARD?
[03:00:01]
WORD? UM, I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT IS TO STREAMLINE, MAKE IT EASY, BUT WHAT IF YOU GUYS ARE AT ODDS? I MEAN, I THINK THAT STAFF WOULD, WE WOULD, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.I I, YOU KNOW, I, I, THEY COULD HAVE THE VARIANCE OPTION ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, BUT I THINK THAT IN THIS CASE, THAT IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT OR FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY MEET THE CONDITIONS, UM, SO MAY NOT INCREASE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER DOES NOT INCREASE NONCOMPLIANCE WITH CRITICAL WATER OF QUALITY ZONE.
SO THOSE ARE EXISTING, UM, REMOVE, UM, EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE CENTER LINE, UM, EROSION CONTROL, ET CETERA.
SO IF THEY DON'T MEET THESE, THEN THEY JUST WOULD NOT, THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO MEET CURRENT CODE.
AND I THINK THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY THE SAME AS IT IS TODAY.
IF, IF THEY DO NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS, THEN THEY DO, THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION AND IT WOULDN'T GO TO COUNCIL AT ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET, THEY DON'T MEET THE REQUIREMENT.
IS EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THAT? ALL RIGHT.
DO WE NEED, DO WE NEED ANY MOTIONS RELATED TO THIS ONE? OR, I'M OKAY.
IS IT'S, ARE YOU SATISFIED? OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE.
OKAY, SO THE NEXT SECTION, AND I'M GONNA HIT THIS ONE AND THEN HIT THE NEXT ONE, BUT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, BUT THIS IS LINE, UH, 8 34.
SO THIS IS THE, UM, THE INCREASE OF THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, UH, OF 400 FEET BELOW, UH, THE DAM.
UM, IT IS TO REMOVE, WELL, IT'S BASICALLY TO LEAVE, LEAVE IT AS IT IS.
UM, AND THE REASONING BEHIND IT IS, UH, THE CODE IS ALREADY ASKING FOR IF YOU'RE WITHIN 400 FEET TO ASK FOR A CERTAIN STUDY ON, UM, THE, I GUESS THE EROSION AND SUCH AROUND IT.
SO IF YOU'RE WITHIN 400 FEET, YOU'RE ALREADY, IT'S ALREADY ASKING YOU TO DO A STUDY, BUT THEN IN THIS SECTION YOU'RE 400 FEET.
IF YOU MOVE THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE TO THAT, THEN YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING IN IT ANYWAY.
BUT THEN WHY NOT LET SCIENCE, YOU KNOW, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THIS? AND ADDITION 400 FEET IS CONSIDERABLE, UM, AMOUNT OF SPACE BEING TAKEN FROM AN AREA THAT, UH, THERE'S VERY LITTLE VOICE, VERY LITTLE REPRESENTATION BECAUSE THEY DON'T GET TO VOTE.
THERE'S NO COUNCIL MEMBER FORM.
UM, SO THE CONCERN IS THAT IT IS A, A TAKING YET WE ALREADY PUT PROVISIONS IN IT WITHIN THE 400 FEET TO STUDY IT ANYWAY, SO WHY NOT JUST LEAVE THE STUDY AND LEAVE THE CRITICAL QUALITY, QUALITY ZONE AS IT IS BECAUSE YOU'RE ALREADY REQUIRING A STUDY.
STAFF, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED CODE? I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
SO THE EXISTING EROSION HAZARD ZONE ANALYSIS IS ONLY REQUIRED WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET.
UM, WE ARE PROPOSING TO EXPAND THAT TO 400 FEET AFTER SPEAKING WITH OUR, UM, ENGINEERING STAFF.
UM, THE REASON THIS IS IN THE ORDINANCE AT ALL IS BECAUSE IT WAS REQUESTED AND PUT IN THE ORIGINAL IFFC FROM CITY COUNCIL.
UM, IT WAS REQUESTED BY EAST SIDE, UM, COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO ARE, HAVE BEEN CONCERNED WITH, UM, INEQUITIES OF PROTECTION ON THE EAST SIDE.
UM, AND UM, AND SO THEY ASKED STAFF TO LOOK AT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANDING, UM, THE COLORADO RIVER BECAUSE IT IS A, AN INCREDIBLE RESOURCE THAT, UM, IN THE FUTURE I THINK WILL BE MORE ACCESSIBLE AND MORE, UM, UH, USED BY THE COMMUNITY AS THAT PART OF TOWN GETS DEVELOPED.
WE HAVE SEEN MANY INSTANCES OF, YOU KNOW, SO LIKE NORWOOD SUBDIVISION FOR EXAMPLE, UM, A SUBDIVISION WAS, UM, APPROVED IN THAT AREA AND THE BANK HAS BEEN SLOWLY MOVING.
THE WATER QUALITY POND IS PROBABLY GONNA BE FALLING IN IN THE NEXT DECADE.
WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO BUY OUT HOMES.
AND SO THIS IS TO PREVENT ADDITIONAL, UM, ELEMENTS THAT HAPPENING.
UH, LET'S GO, GO AROUND THREE AND THREE.
UH, WE'RE IN THE Q AND A KIND OF, WE HAVE A, JUST A PROPOSED, UM, AMENDMENT.
SO I THINK THIS ONE'S A LITTLE CLEARER TO ME.
SO IF ANY, I SEE COMMISSIONER COX, UH, WANTS TO ASK OTHER QUESTIONS AND THEN COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND, AND WHEN I GO, I WANNA HAVE A MAP IF I CAN.
OKAY, SO WE'LL START COMMISSIONER COX AND THEN COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
YEAH, I THINK I'M LOOKING AT THE MAP THAT COMMISSIONER ANDERSON IS REFERRING TO.
UM, SO I'M CURIOUS IF STAFF CAN, CAN CLARIFY FOR US FOR, FOR STRUCTURES THAT ARE WITHIN THIS EXPANDED
[03:05:01]
CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.UM, I, I AGREE WITH STAFF'S INTENT HERE.
UM, WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA END UP BUYING OUT THOSE STRUCTURES ANYWAYS, BUT IF, IF THOSE STRUCTURES THAT ARE EXISTING WANTED TO DO SOMETHING, IF THEY WANTED TO ADD A FLOOR OR TAKE OVER THE PARKING LOT NEXT TO IT, THAT'S ALSO WITHIN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
IS THERE A MECHANISM OR A PROCESS FOR THEM TO ATTEMPT THAT WITH STAFF'S REVIEW OR IS IT JUST BASICALLY ENTIRELY SHUT DOWN WITH THIS CODE CHANGE? SO I GUESS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, UM, SO BECAUSE WE ARE AT THIS POINT KIND OF PUNTING THE DISCUSSION OF WHAT APPLIES TO SINGLE FAMILY AND WHAT DOESN'T APPLY WOULD BE CONTINUED BUSINESS AS USUAL, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT, UM, CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE REVIEW DOES NOT OCCUR CURRENTLY WITH, UM, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EROSION HAZARD ZONE DOES.
AND SO THAT WOULD CONTINUE TO OCCUR.
SO THERE WOULD BE AN EROSION HAZARD ZONE ANALYSIS IF IT WERE LIKE AN INTERIOR REMODEL OR SOMETHING, OR JUST ADDING A FLOOR.
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD, WELL, I I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR EROSION HAZARD ZONE FOLKS.
UM, IF IT WERE SOMETHING THAT'S LIKE A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SITE PLAN, CURRENT CODE WOULD APPLY, THERE IS THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION OPTION, UM, AVAILABLE.
UM, IF, IF IT MEETS THOSE CONDITIONS.
IF NOT, IT WOULD BE, UM, A, A VARIANCE.
UM, IF, IF THEY CAN'T MEET THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, OF COURSE ANY UH, DEVELOPMENT, UM, WOULD BE ABLE TO BE KEPT AND MAINTAINED.
UM, AS IS UNDER CURRENT PROVISIONS, WE'RE NOT REQUIRING ANYTHING TO BE REMOVED OR ANYTHING WITH THIS CODE ADOPTION.
IT'S ONLY AS PERMITS ARE BROUGHT ON THAT WE WOULD REVIEW THE COMPONENTS.
AND REAL QUICK BEFORE I RUN OUT OF TIME, IT LOOKS LIKE MOST OF THIS EXPANDED CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE IS ALREADY WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN.
UM, SO SO MUCH OF IT IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXPANSION, BUT SOME OF IT IS PARTICULARLY ALONG CAESAR CHAVEZ AND SOME SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE ALONG 71 NEAR THE AIRPORT.
I'M JUST CURIOUS IF YOU CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT THE 400 FEET IS BASED ON, UH, VERSUS THE PREVIOUS BEING BASED ON THE FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY.
FOR THE COLORADO RIVER, UM, I THINK THE DISCUSSION WAS THAT IT THE RIPARIAN ZONE, SO THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE AND THE EROSION HAZARD ZONE, THE WEIGHT, BECAUSE OF THE, THE DAM OPERATIONS, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MAKE SENSE TO TIE IT TO THE FLOOD PLAIN.
UM, IT'S REALLY LOOKING AT THE GEOLOGY AND UM, HOW, HOW FAR IN IN THE FUTURE DO WE WANT THESE THINGS TO STAY.
SO THE RIVER KIND OF MEANDERS, THERE'S A LOT OF EROSION OCCURRING, THERE'S MASS WASTING OF CERTAIN BANKS AND UM, IN ORDER TO BE SECURE THAT SOMETHING IS GONNA LAST FOR THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, 50 YEARS, A HUNDRED YEARS.
UM, OUR EROSION ENGINEER THAT WE SPOKE WITH RECOMMENDED, UM, 400 FEET TO BE TO BE SAFE.
THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE DOES HAVE, IT'S NOT A COMPLETELY NO BUILD ZONE, FOR INSTANCE, TRAILS CAN BE ALLOWED IN THE OUTER HALF.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, SPEAKING WITH PART, WE'VE TOLD THEM, YOU KNOW, THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WANNA KEEP THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE CUZ THEY'RE PLANNING TRAILS, UM, THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, THE BERGSTROM TRAIL LOOP, UM, IF THEY WANNA KEEP THAT, THEY NEED TO BUILD IT, YOU KNOW, TWO OR 300 FEET AWAY FROM THE BANK SO THAT WE'RE NOT GOING BACK AND, YOU KNOW, FIXING THE BANK, WHICH IS A, WOULD BE A HUGE ENDEAVOR, UM, JUST TO PROTECT THAT ASSET.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING ABOUT NOT JUST WHAT THE 400 FEET WOULD DO, BUT WHAT THE HALF CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE WOULD ALLOW, WHICH, UM, THERE'S MORE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THAT.
HEY, CAN I HAVE STAFF PULL UP THE MAP AND COULD WE GO AHEAD AND ZOOM IN ON CAESAR CHAVEZ AROUND THE DAM? SO IT'D BE THE FAR LEFT, LEFT JUST ABOVE LADY BURLE.
EVERYTHING THAT SAYS CESAR CHA IS RIGHT THERE.
AND WE CAN JUST ZOOM IN AND IN AND IN.
UM, AND THEN IF YOU CAN COME IN A LITTLE BIT MORE, THAT'S GREAT.
SO THIS AREA I MEAN, WE'RE CROSSING CESAR CHAVEZ, SO WE REALLY FEEL THAT CESAR CHAVEZ IS IN JEOPARDY OF DISAPPEARING INTO THE COLORADO RIVER.
UM, THE, THAT BANK IS PRETTY STEEP AND EROSIVE.
UM, I THINK I WOULD WANT TO TALK TO OUR EROSION ENGINEER BEFORE I HAD ANSWERED THAT QUESTION, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, ALL THE TIME.
[03:10:01]
THANKS.I LOOK AT THE PROPERTY FAR LEFT OVER HERE AT CAESAR CHAVEZ IN PLEASANT VALLEY, AND IT'S A BANK SURROUNDED BY A COPIOUS AMOUNT OF SURFACE PARKING.
AND, YOU KNOW, MY SHORT TERM HOPE FOR THIS WOULD BE TO SEE A LOT OF HOUSING GO HERE.
I MEAN, IT'S A GREAT PROPERTY.
IT'S VERY, THAT BANK SERVES A ROLE AND SERVES A LOT OF PEOPLE AND EAST AUSTIN, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE A MIXED USE BUILDING WITH THE BANK STILL IN IT AND 200 HOMES ABOVE IT.
AND I WOULD HATE TO THINK THAT WE'RE GONNA CHEW UP HALF THE SPACE AND ALMOST WORK TO PRESERVE SURFACE PARKING VIA THIS RULE.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION WOULD ALLOW.
SO IF THAT IS MORE THAN 50 FEET AWAY, THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY RESTORATION REQUIRED.
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, ASK FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, NOT INCREASE IMPERVIOUS COVER AND PROVIDE WATER QUALITY.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THEN THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT IT, YOU KNOW, REDEVELOP IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
AND HOW HAVE WE GONE ABOUT LEARNING ALL THESE FOLKS OF THIS, THIS PROCESS HERE? UM, WE HAVE NOT DONE ANY ADDITIONAL OUTREACH TO PROPERTY OWNERS, UM, BEYOND THE NORMAL STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.
IS THAT GONNA COME BACK TO BITE US? HARD TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I THINK WE'RE, IF WE DO NOTHING THAT WILL ALSO COME BACK TO BDU.
SO COULD THIS BE ANOTHER THING THAT WE LOOK TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO INCENTIVIZE PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE A PART OF THIS? AND IT'S HARD FOR ME TO THINK ABOUT INCENTIVE PROGRAMS FOR SOMETHING THAT IS VERY DIRECTLY RELATED TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY IN THIS WAY AND IN THE EROSIVE WAY THAT, THAT WE SEE, UM, THIS RIVER FUNCTION DOWNSTREAM OF LONGHORN DAM.
UM, I MEAN, WE LITERALLY HAVE PONDS AND, AND HOUSES THAT ARE, THAT ARE FALLING INTO THE RIVER DOWNSTREAM AND, AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS GOING INTO PROJECTS THAT WE'RE SPENDING A TON OF ENGINEERING TIME, LIKE COUNTRY CLUB CREEK TRYING TO, TO FIX BECAUSE OF HOW EROSIVE THIS, THIS RIVER IS.
I'M JUST THINKING I'VE NEVER KNOWN CAESAR CHILDS TO BE AT RISK OF FALLING INTO THE RIVER.
AND IF THAT'S POTENTIAL HERE, THEN I MEAN, YOU LOOK AT, AT EDIT FROM, FROM THE RIVER UP.
OKAY, WE'RE GONNA, IF THERE'S NO OPPOSITION, WE'RE GONNA, UM, JUST MODIFY OUR RULES TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND JUST THREE, UH, ADDITIONAL ONES IF WE NEED 'EM.
DON'T HAVE TO USE 'EM, BUT WHO, WHO WANTS TO GO NEXT? COMMISSIONER MUTO.
AND THEN COMMISSIONER, LET'S SEE, THOMPSON AND THEN COMMISSIONER ZA.
UM, SO THE 400 FOOT EXTENSION CAME FROM, REMIND ME, YOU MENTIONED, AND YOU ANSWERED THAT, SORRY.
SO THE ORIGINAL, UM, RESOLUTION FROM COUNCIL THAT DIRECTED STAFF TO DO THIS MM-HMM.
BUT IN TERMS OF, UH, YOU SAID YOU HAD AN ENGINEER OR EROSION, SORRY, THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.
SO THE, THE QUESTION WAS ASK STAFF TO EXAMINE THE, UM, HOW, YOU KNOW, EX EXISTING CODE TO ENSURE THAT, UM, THE, UH, THE BANK IS STABLE AND THE RIPARIAN BUFFER IS PROTECTED SUFFICIENTLY PROTECTIVE.
UM, AND SO THAT'S OUR PROCESS WAS TO, TO DO A GIS ANALYSIS TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT SETBACKS, TO LOOK AT WHAT EXISTING CODE IS EROSION CONCERNS.
AND THEN WE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH, I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS ASKING IS HOW, YEAH, HOW DID WE GET TO 400 VERSUS 310 OR, YOU KNOW, THREE 50 OR WHATEVER.
I MEAN, I, I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT WE, WE DIDN'T DO ANY MODELING TO LOOK AT THAT NECESSARILY.
IT WAS, UM, BASICALLY, UM, THE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT OF, UM, OUR EROSION EXPERTS OKAY.
WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE SOILS THERE AND HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME
I THINK WHAT WE'RE GETTING INTO IS CONCERNS ABOUT BALANCING THE FLOOD MITIGATION RISKS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER RIGHTS AND WHAT MIGHT POTENTIALLY CONSTITUTE A TAKING, INADVERTENTLY A TAKING OF THEIR RIGHTS.
I MEAN, THIS IS, THIS IS AN EVOLVING WATER BODY AND IT CAN CHANGE.
AND JUST BECAUSE THERE MAY BE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN THAT CHANGE DRASTICALLY IN THEIR LIFETIME DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND IF YOU'VE GROWN UP IN THOSE AREAS WHERE THOSE UNEXPECTED WATER CHANGES HAPPEN AND
[03:15:01]
YOU WEREN'T SUFFICIENTLY WARNED.SO ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS CAME UP IS IF WE'RE REQUIRING A STUDY ON A PARTICULAR PART, THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT A STUDY AND LOOK AT IT, WHY ISN'T THAT GOVERNING VERSUS THE ABSOLUTE 400? I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER ON WHAT THE INTENT IS.
SO THE EROSION HAZARD ZONE IS, UM, A STUDY THAT ONLY LOOKS AT EROSION AND NOT THE WATER QUALITY BENEFITS THAT THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE HAS.
SO THERE ONE IS DRAINAGE AND ONE IS WATER QUALITY.
UM, WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE, SO COULD WE SURE THAT THEY'RE TOGETHER, SO COULD THEN WOULD, IT WOULD BE BETTER PROTECT AGAINST SOME OF THESE CONCERNS IF WE HAD A STUDY REQUIREMENT TO BE ABLE TO DO DEVELOPMENT VERSUS AN ABSOLUTE YES OR NO.
THAT THAT IS PART OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THE, THE EROSION HAZARD ZONE STUDY.
I THINK I'M STILL CONFUSED ON SOMEBODY ELSE.
UH, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON THEN FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER AAR.
UM, I GUESS I WANNA KNOW A LITTLE BIT AND EXACTLY WHAT THE GOAL IS HERE.
IS IT THAT DEVELOPMENT IN THAT ZONE INCREASES EROSION OR WE'RE JUST PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM FUTURE EROSION? SO WE DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT GOES, THEN FALLS INTO THE RIVER? OR DOES BUILDING A HOUSE ACTUALLY CAUSE THE EROSION? IT, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH.
I WOULD SAY MAYBE A JUST ONE HOUSE, MAYBE NOT, BUT I'VE SEEN CASES WHERE ACTIVITIES, UM, ON THE LAND REMOVING VEGETATION, FOR EXAMPLE, DOING GRADING, DOES DESTABILIZE THE BANK CAUSE A HEAD CUT THAT THEN JUST CONTINUES TO MIGRATE ON AND ON.
AND SO TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN KEEP PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE BANK AND LEAVE IT AS IT IS, UM, THAT IS, UH, THAT IS DEFINITELY A GOAL.
BUT ALSO TO PROTECT EITHER EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE OR FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE FROM, UM, THE EROSION THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE KIND OF TWO DIFFERENT GOALS, I GUESS, BUT THEY'RE BOTH SIMILAR.
SO THAT IS IT THAT REMOVING THE VEGETATION CAUSES THE EROSION AND THE GRADING.
BUT I MEAN, I WOULD THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, INSERTING PILINGS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, THAT MIGHT STOP EROSION IS THAT DEPENDING ON WHAT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING LIKE 50 FOOT BANKS THAT ARE SHEER, YOU CAN'T JUST PUT A PILING AND CALL IT GOOD.
THAT'S A MASSIVE, UM, PROJECT.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT A LARGE PROJECT THAT INCREASES A LOT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER CONCENTRATE, STORM WATER TO FLOW, UM, TO THE COLORADO RIVER WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF DESTABILIZING THE BANK.
MS. JOHNSON, CAN YOU, I'LL ASK A SIMPLE ONE FOR US.
DOES THIS APPLY IN THE EDG AS WELL, OR JUST THE FULL PURPOSE POST JURISDICTION? IT WOULD APPLY IN THE ETJ AS WELL.
AND CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION TO ME AGAIN? RIGHT, SO THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, SO IT'S EXISTING CODE NOW, UM, AND THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO, YOU KNOW, AS WE SAID, REMOVE CERTAIN THINGS, UM, INCLUDING THE VEHICLE TRIPS.
LET ME TRY TO GET TO THAT SECTION SO I, UM, SPEAK TO IT CORRECTLY.
UM, SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO IS, UM, SO THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION SAYS THAT YOU CAN KEEP, UM, YOUR IMPERVIOUS COVER AND, AND EXIST IN A NON-COMPLIANT STATE.
YOU CAN COME IN AND REDEVELOP THAT PROPERTY.
YOU CAN'T PUT YOUR IMPERVIOUS COVER CLOSER TO THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
YOU CAN KEEP IT WHERE IT IS OR MOVE IT.
YOU CAN KIND OF LIKE REARRANGE FURNITURE.
YOU CAN'T INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF, UM, NON-COMPLIANT IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UM, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT, UM, CURRENT CODES AS YOU CAN'T, UH, INCREASE TRAFFIC OR VEHICLE TRIPS BY 2000 AND YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
UM, AND WE ARE WITH THIS ORDINANCE, WE'RE PROPOSING TO ALSO REQUIRE, UM, THAT WITHIN A MINIMUM SETBACK ON THE CREEK EITHER CREEK OR RIVER, THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME LEVEL OF REMOVAL OF, UM, NON-COMPLIANT IMPERVIOUS COVER REAL CLOSE TO THE CREEK AND RESTORATION IN THAT AREA.
UM, AND SO THAT, THAT DOES ALLOW THE, UM, PROJECT TO KEEP NON-COMPLIANT IMPERVIOUS COVER GO, YOU KNOW, VERTICAL.
HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T GET INTO HEIGHT OR ANY OF THAT.
[03:20:01]
NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE REST OF 25 8.SO SLOPES CUT AND FILL ANYTHING ELSE, IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS.
IF SO, LIKE IF YOU HAVE MORE PREVIOUS COVER THEN CURRENTLY ALLOWS, YOU CAN KEEP THAT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK.
UM, SO IT INCENTIVIZES REDEVELOPMENT OF, OF PROJECTS THAT DON'T COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODE.
AND JUST TO CONFIRM, I UNDERSTOOD THIS CORRECTLY.
SO IF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE EXISTS THERE TODAY, THEY CAN TEAR IT DOWN, MAINTAIN ALL THESE, UM, YOU KNOW, THINGS REALLY INTO DISCOVERY AND AS LONG AS THEY DON'T MOVE THE HOUSE CLOSER TO THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO REDEVELOP SOME FORM OF IT.
SO FOR REDEVELOPMENT HAPPENS WITH SITE PLANS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WE DON'T REVIEW FOR CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
IT WOULD ONLY BE AT THE EROSION HAZARD ZONE REVIEW.
WHAT, WHAT I'M, I'M SORRY, JUST TO CONFIRM THAT I'M RUNNING OUT OF TIME HERE.
SO ARE WE SAYING THAT THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY APPLY TO REDEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME UNDER CURRENT PROCESS? THERE IS.
WE WERE HOPING TO TRY TO CLARIFY THAT WITH THE MISSING MIDDLE COMPONENT, BUT UNDER CURRENT PROCESS WE DON'T REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE.
UH, FOLKS, WE'VE HAD QUITE A FEW ADDITIONAL SPACES.
UM, DO WE OR IS ANYONE WANNA MAKE A MOTION ON THIS? WE'RE OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, ZA YOU MAKE A MOTION.
THIS IS SORT OF A GENERAL MOTION AND I CAN SPEAK TO IT IN A SECOND.
SO I WOULD SAY CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF CHANGES TO THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE ON PROPERTY OWNERS AND PROVIDE PROPERTY OWNER RELIEF ASSOCIATED WITH LOSS OF FUTURE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF OWNERSHIP.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF CHANGES TO THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE ON PROPERTY OWNERS AND PROVIDE PROPERTY OWNER RELIEF ASSOCIATED WITH LOSS OF FUTURE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF OWNERSHIP.
AND I'M NOT SAYING WHETHER THAT'S ENTITLEMENTS OR BUYOUTS OR SOMETHING, BUT JUST SOME KIND OF PROPERTY OWNER RELIEF.
UM, SO THIS IS IN CON THIS IS TO ADD A LINE TO THE 400 FOOT, I GUESS I, YES.
SO IT, IT, I MEAN, I SHOULD BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT A CODE CHANGE, THIS IS JUST INDICATING AN ISSUE TO COUNCIL.
SO I SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR THAT MY AMENDMENT IS NOT A CODE CHANGE AT ALL.
IT JUST SAYS, CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THE CHANGES TO THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
SO GOING FROM THE GOING UP TO 400 DID WHAT, WHAT IMPACT THOSE CHANGES HAVE, AND THEN PROVIDE, UH, SOME KIND OF PROPERTY OWNER RELIEF TO THE FOLKS WHO MIGHT BE IMPACTED BY THAT CHANGE.
AND I CAN SPEAK TO THAT MOTION.
SO LET'S, UH, HEAR FROM STAFF REAL QUICK.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS? IT LOOKS LIKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL WHEN THEY'RE CONSIDERING THESE CODE AMENDMENTS.
I, I DON'T SEE, UH, ANY ISSUE, UH, WITH, WITH THAT, UM, WITH THAT ITEM.
I MEAN, WE'RE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT HAVING TO BUY OUT, UH, SOME HOMES AND, AND ALSO
UH, SO THAT'S ALREADY PART OF WHAT IS BEING CONSIDERED BECAUSE EROSION THAT IS HAPPENING.
UH, AND SO THAT WOULD BE A PART OF WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER IN THE LONG TERM ANYWAY.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, VICE SHARE PLE SECOND THIS MOTION? DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? SURE.
UM, FOLKS, I'M LITERALLY PHYSICALLY RINGING MY HANDS HERE.
THIS IS PERHAPS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WE MIGHT DO TONIGHT.
I DID NOT REALIZE SOMETHING UNTIL TONIGHT, AND I SORT OF WENT AND LOOKED AT THE MAPS AGAINST GOOGLE MAPS AND OUR, AND OUR FULL PURPOSE JURISDICTION MAP, AND FOUND AT LEAST FOUR SEPARATE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IN OUR FULL PURPOSE JURISDICTION AND ONE IN OUR ETJ THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THIS.
YOU KNOW, THESE ARE FOLKS WHO, AT THIS POINT, UNLESS THEY'RE FOLLOWING THIS PROCESS, MAY HAVE NO IDEA THAT THEY WILL HAVE SEVERE LIMITATIONS ON HOW THEY REDEVELOP THEIR SITES.
AND THESE ARE EAST SIDE COMMUNITIES, AND I THINK THE ONE, I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS A COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION, SO COUNCIL HAS TO CONSIDER IT.
I'M NOT SURE HOW, WHAT WE CAN DO ON THIS DIE TONIGHT.
AND THE SECOND THING I WOULD SAY, THERE'S REAL SAFETY CONCERNS.
WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO SLIDE INTO THE RIVER.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I'M NOT SURE I CAN TAKE AWAY EASTSIDE RESIDENTS AND THEIR WEALTH.
LIKE TWO OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE JUST NORTH OF THE AIRPORT.
THOSE ARE FOLKS WHO HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN DISENFRANCHISED.
I CAN'T JUST SIT HERE TODAY AND ROB THEM OF, YOU KNOW, WEALTH FOR THEM AND THEIR CHILDREN.
AND I GUESS ALL MY AMENDMENT IS REALLY DOING IS, IS FLAGGING THIS FOR CONSULT TO RESOLVE WITH OUR STAFF BECAUSE IT IS INDEED THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
UM, BUT I DO THINK WE SHOULD SEND SOME KIND OF SIGNAL TO COUNSEL.
THIS IS A CONCERN WHILE WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THE SAFETY PIECE AND WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD CONSIDER HOW THAT EXPANDS.
AND I THINK WE'RE HEARING SOME VERY CLEAR SIGNALS FROM OUR STAFF WHY THIS IS VERY NECESSARY AND CRITICAL AND SCIENTIFICALLY BASED ON THE WORK THAT THEY DO.
SO I APPRECIATE THEIR, UM, THEIR TECHNICAL EXPERTISE ON THIS.
BUT HOPEFULLY WE CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO REALLY ADDRESS THE NEED OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS.
UM, AND I'M, AND I KNOW THIS IMPACTS A NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AS WELL, BUT MY CONCERN REALLY AT THIS POINT IS RESIDENTIAL.
[03:25:01]
BUT OF COURSE, AS COUNSEL IS CONSIDERING, THEY CAN SEE WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR ALL PROPERTY OWNERS.UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, WELL, REAL QUICK, LET'S, UH, I SEE THE TIME IS NINE, ALMOST NINE 50.
UH, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO EXTEND COMMISSIONER ISAR CHILD? GO AHEAD AND EXTEND OUR MEETING TO 11:00 PM 11:00 PM I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER, UH, COX.
UH, LET'S GONNA TAKE A QUICK VOTE.
UM, THOSE ON THE DIAS THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
LOOKS LIKE WE'RE NEED UNANIMOUS ON THAT ONE.
COMMISSIONER COX, CAN I MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION? UH, YES YOU CAN.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IN THE DIRECTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF STAFF THAT THEY ALSO EVALUATE THE FEASIBILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A VARIANCE FEE EXEMPTION FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE EXPANDED CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
WHAT, REPEAT THE MOTION? YEAH, REPEAT, UH, JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF GETTING A SECOND HERE, REPEAT THE MOTION AND EXPLAIN THE, THAT TERM YOU USED.
SO, SO IN ADDITION TO WHAT COMMISSIONERS ARE AS FED ADD, AND FOR STAFF TO EVALUATE THE FEASIBILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A VARIANCE FEE EXEMPTION FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE EXPANDED CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
AND I CAN ELABORATE ON THAT IF YOU WANT ME TO.
UM, DOES, IS EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THAT? SOMEBODY'S GONNA SECOND THIS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF, OKAY.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SR.
UH, GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION AND, AND MAYBE GIVE A LITTLE MORE DEFINITION OF VARIANCE FEE EXEMPTION.
UM, I'M NOT CLEAR ON THAT WITH THAT.
YEAH, SO, SO THE BIG, THE BIG, UM, THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE AND JUST A VARIANCE IS THAT, UH, THERE'S A BIG COST DIFFERENCE AND THERE'S A TIME DIFFERENCE.
UM, ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE OBVIOUSLY CAN BE DONE BY STAFF.
UH, ACTUAL VARIANCE HAS TO GO THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE COMMISSION PROCESS.
I'M VERY FLUENT IN GETTING VARIANCES BECAUSE I'VE GOTTEN QUITE A FEW OF THEM.
UH, AND, AND IT, THERE'S ACTUALLY A VERY SUBSTANTIAL FEE.
I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT IS, BUT FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE, I THINK IT'S LIKE, I WANNA SAY IT'S LIKE $8,000 FOR AN INDIVIDUAL VARIANCE.
AND YOU HAVE TO, TO GET ONE FOR EACH VARIANCE YOU'RE PURSUING.
SO THE LAST PROJECT I DID, WE HAD TO GET FOUR VARIANCES, AND IT COST THE APPLICANT LIKE ALMOST $40,000 JUST IN FEES.
SO THERE IS A VARIANCE PROCESS FOR THESE, FOR THESE PROPERTIES THAT ARE GETTING CAUGHT UP IN THIS EXPANDED CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
AND I JUST FEEL LIKE, I THINK STAFF HAS JUSTIFIED THE EXPANDED CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
BUT I ALSO WANT TO, TO ENABLE A PROCESS FOR THESE PROPERTY OWNERS TO, TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT GO THROUGH A PROCESS THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY CAREFULLY CONSIDER WHAT THEY'RE DOING, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, NOT PENALIZE THEM FINANCIALLY FOR THIS RULE CHANGE.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THE VARIANCE FEE EXEMPTION COMES IN.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY THAT FEE EXEMPTION IF THEY'RE CAUGHT UP IN THIS CHANGE, BUT WANNA DEVELOP SOMETHING BIGGER THAN THE REDEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION ALLOWS.
IT'S A, YOU GETS, YOU DON'T PAY THE FEE.
HE'S NOT SAYING TO PAY FOR IT.
YEAH, HE'S SAYING EXEMPT THEM.
I THOUGHT IT WAS THE OTHER THING MAKING HIM PAY.
UH, UM,
UH, THERE IS A, AN ORDINANCE FROM THE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S STATE OR FEDERAL, BUT IT'S THE COST OF SERVICE.
THE COST OF SERVICE HAS TO BE PAID FOR NO MATTER WHAT.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO ME ABSOLVING A PROPERTY OWNER OF THIS FEE, THE FEE HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE BECAUSE YOU'RE PAYING FOR THE STAFF, YOU'RE PAYING PRINTING, YOU'RE PAYING FOR THE TELEVISION, ALL THOSE THINGS.
THAT'S PART OF THE, THE FEE THAT'S NORMALLY APPLIED, THAT THAT'S WHAT IT GOES TO PAY FOR.
SO THE COST OF SERVICE HAS TO BE PETE, SOMEHOW THE STAFF.
DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT REAL QUICKLY? WE WILL LOOK INTO IT.
I, UM, I KNOW THAT THERE IS THIS GENERAL SENSE THAT IT, UM, WE SHOULD HAVE A FEE FOR OUR SERVICE.
HOWEVER, I ALSO KNOW THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN PROJECTS TYPES THAT DON'T HAVE REVIEW FEES, LIKE, UM, UH, SMART HOUSING PROJECTS, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE THOSE WAIVED AND, YOU KNOW, SOME, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL CAN AMEND THE BUDGET IN THE WAY THEY WANT.
[03:30:01]
I, I THINK WOULD RE WE'LL LOOK INTO IT, I GUESS.I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHERE WE ARE.
UM, JUST JUST TO THAT QUESTION, I JUST WANNA QUICKLY RESPOND THAT MY MOTION ESSENTIALLY REALLY SAID, PROVIDE PROPERTY OWNER RELIEF.
AND THAT'S WHY I LEFT AND WA BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE SOLUTION HERE IS FOR SOME OF THESE.
THEY COULD, WE COULD REDUCE THEIR FRONT SETBACKS TO MAKE THEM MOVE FORWARD INTO THE STREET.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE SOLUTIONS HERE ARE OR WHETHER THERE'S BUYOUTS OR WHETHER YOU CAN MOVE TO ANOTHER USE THAT IS NOT LIKE A FLOOD COMING IN AT 3M.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE SOLUTION HERE IS, BUT I, I JUST HOPE THAT COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER THIS.
SO WE WERE AT, UH, WE HAD COMMISSIONER CO SPEAKING IN FAVORS MOTION.
DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, IT'S, I'M SORRY.
IT'S AMENDMENT TO COMMISSIONER, OURS.
UH, SO IT'S ADDED TO IT, RIGHT? YEAH.
WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FIRST.
UH, WE HAVE NOT GONE THE SLOTS AGAINST IT.
SO, UM, WE'RE VOTING ON, WE'RE OUR COMMISSION FOREIGN AGAINST FOR THE AMENDMENT AT THIS POINT? I, I CAN, SO, YES.
UM, COMMISSIONER COX, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
WE ARE NOW LOOKING FOR AN, WE'RE JUST VOTING NOT ON THE MAIN AMENDMENT THAT I MADE AN AMENDMENT DO.
OUR AMENDMENT, WHICH IS, AND STAFF SHOULD EVALUATE THE FEASIBILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A VARIANCE FEE, EXCEPTIONS EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE EXPANDED CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
SO WE WERE, UH, COMMISSIONER COX WAS SPEAKING IN FAVOR.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKING AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT, UH, ANY FOR AGAINST DISCUSSION AT ALL? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AND, UH, COMMISSION MS. CLER, ARE YOU FOR AGAINST THIS MOTION? I GUESS I'M FOR, OKAY.
THIS AMENDMENT, I, I WANTED TO OFFER A CLARIFICATION BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF ETJ FOLKS THAT DON'T HAVE REPRESENTATION, BUT REALLY WHAT WE'RE KIND OF LOOKING AT AS AN LCR ISSUE AND HOW WE'RE MANAGING THE CENTRAL FLOOD PLAIN.
SO AS THEY'VE CREATED THIS, I KIND OF WANTED TO JUST MAKE AWARENESS ON THAT, THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR FOLKS THAT DON'T HAVE A, DON'T HAVE A LEGAL PATHWAY.
CUZ I THINK THAT'S GONNA, ICU'S GONNA BE TAKEN UP AT THE LEDGE LEVEL THIS SESSION.
CAN I ADDRESS THAT FOR A SECOND? UM, GO AHEAD BRIEFLY.
SO I PERSONALLY HAVE DONE PROJECTS THAT HAVE GOTTEN VARIANCES IN C F BUFFER REDUCTIONS IN THE ETJ.
YOU JUST BASICALLY GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS.
SO, SO THERE, SO EVEN IF FOLKS IN ETJ DON'T HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER REPRESENTED REPRESENTATION, THEY, THEY DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO THROUGH THE VA THE VARIANCE PROCESS, JUST LIKE FULL JURISDICTION DOES THEY HAVE NO.
UH, ANY FOUR FOUR AGAINST BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS.
ALL RIGHT, THIS IS JUST VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT FROM COMMISSIONER COX.
DOES ON THE DIN FAVOR, UH, THAT'S EVERYONE DOES ON THE SCREEN.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO THE MAIN, UH, MOTION THAT THIS COMMISSIONERS ARE SECONDED BY.
WHO IS THE SECOND ON, I THINK HANDBOOK? YEAH, THANK YOU CHAIRS.
COXES ARE, NOPE, THAT WAS THE SECOND.
WE'RE, UH, BACK TO THE MAIN AMENDMENT.
SO DO WE NEED TO REPEAT THIS FOR MINE OR ARE WE CLEAR ON THE MAIN AMENDMENT? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE THAT'S ON THE DIAS, UH, CHE.
SO, UH, WERE WE ON YOUR, YOUR LAST ITEM? NO, I'VE GOT MORE.
HOW MANY MORE DO YOU HAVE? UM, NOT MANY.
WELL I ACTUALLY, I THINK JUST ONE CUZ THE REST ARE LIKE FUNCTIONAL GREEN, WHICH WE KICKED LATER ANYWAY.
YEAH, WE ALREADY, WE ALREADY GOT THAT.
SO, UM, I THINK ONLY HAVE ONE.
UM, THIS SECTION TALKS ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN PUT IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONES.
I KNOW THAT, UM, A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT THE, UM, WHAT CAN GO IN THERE AND IS, THIS IS IN TALKING ABOUT IN-CHANNEL DETENTION BASIN AND IN-CHANNEL WET PONDS.
AND, UH, THERE WAS IN UNDER LINE 1 2 2 1 F THEY ADDED TWO SECTION PROPOSED AS PART OF PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, ONLY WHAT ALLOWABLE IS IF IT'S PART OF A PUBLIC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT OR NO ALTERNATIVE IS FEASIBLE.
UM, SO MY PROPOSALS TO LEAVE IT, UH, BUT TO, I MEAN TO ME, I WAS JUST SAYING IT'S LIKE THE, THE, IF THE REASON TO TAKE
[03:35:01]
THAT OUT OF IN-CHANNEL DETENTION AND UH, WATER QUALITY WAS BECAUSE A COUPLE PONDS DIDN'T WORK WELL, WHY NOT INCREASE THE STANDARDS OF THE PONDS AND THE WATER QUALITY? YOU KNOW, AND THEN STILL, CUZ IF WE WERE TO TAKE THAT OUT, IT TAKES ESPECIALLY A, A, IT TAKES AWAY A LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT.IF YOU'RE GONNA EXPAND THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE AND REMOVE STUFF OUT OF IT, THEN YOU KEEP PUSHING THAT LINE FURTHER OUT AND YOU KEEP EATING UP DEVELOPMENT AREA.
SO THE AMENDMENT WAS TO STILL ALLOW IT, WHICH IS REMOVING YOUR ONE AND TWO.
SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED IN THE COUNCIL, UM, RESOLUTION.
SO IT SAID, UM, YOU KNOW, DIRECT STAFF TO BRING FORTH A RESOLUTION THAT PROHIBITS IN CHANNEL DETENTION PONDS MM-HMM.
SO, UH, THAT IS WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE DOING WHAT COUNCIL ASKED US TO DO.
UM, THIS DOES WITH EXISTING CODE THAT, UM, DETENTION PONDS ARE PROHIBITED IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, BUT THEN THEY'RE ALLOWED IN THE IN CHANNEL.
UM, I THINK THE IDEA IS THAT IT'S, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO MODEL THE, UM, REQUIRED, UH, UM, SOIL LIKE TO ENSURE THAT THE, THE, IT DOESN'T INCREASE DOWNSTREAM EROSION.
UM, AND SO THAT, I THINK THE ORIGINAL THOUGHT WHEN THIS WAS PROPOSED A LONG TIME AGO WAS THAT IT WOULD BE PRETTY RARE.
UM, THEY'RE BECOMING LESS RARE AND THERE HAVE BEEN SOME, UM, NEGATIVE, UM, NEGATIVE OUTCOMES TO CREEKS, WHICH ARE, SO COULD THOSE HAVE PROTECTED FEATURES IN THE, COULD THOSE, CAN THOSE BE RESOLVED BY HIGHER PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IF I WOULDN'T YOU GREEN, GREEN STORM WATER IS ALL ABOUT INCREASING THE PERFORMANCE OF IT.
WHY NOT INCREASE THE PERFORMANCE OF, OF THE PONDS AND THE WATER QUALITY? THIS ONLY DETENTION, IT'S NOT WATER QUALITY PONDS ARE DETENTION PONDS.
SO LET'S KIND OF FRAME A, UM, I GUESS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE AND THEN LET'S GO THROUGH OUR THREE OF THREE.
SO, SO I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS JUST GOING BACK TO WHAT IT WAS, WHICH IS ALLOW, WHAT IT WAS IS REMOVING ONE AND TWO, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, F ONE AND F TWO WAS WHAT WAS ADDED.
SO, UH, THE DISCUSSION WOULD BE TO THE REMOVAL OF ONE AND TWO, BUT THAT THAT'S WHAT THE POTENTIAL AMENDMENT IS.
AND THOSE ALLOWED IN CHANNEL DETENTION AND THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITIES ARE IF IT'S DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL.
IT'S NOT WIDELY USED, IT'S NOT BEST PRACTICE.
IT DOES NOT PROMOTE A GOOD ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM WITHIN OUR CREEKS.
AND IT'S OFTEN WEAPONIZED AS A TOOL TO THREATEN, UH, US AND NOT WIDELY USED AS A TOOL TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT.
DO WE HAVE ANY Q AND A? LET'S KEEP IT TO THREE IF WE CAN SO WE CAN KEEP THINGS MOVING.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS BEFORE WE CONSIDER A MOTION, IF ANY? UH, COMMISSIONER COX.
UM, SO, UH, COMMISSIONER SHANE AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS AT LENGTH
UM, BUT I GUESS SPECIFICALLY FOR STAFF, YOU'VE INSERTED THE F TWO, WHICH IS NO ALTERNATIVE LOCATION IS FEASIBLE.
AND, AND SINCE I'VE DESIGNED A FEW OF THESE PROJECTS AND, AND COMMISSIONER SHAY HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THESE PROJECTS AS WELL, WE, WE OFTEN KNOW THAT THE LOWEST POINT ON THE SITE IS USUALLY WHERE YOU PUT YOUR DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY PONDS.
AND IF YOU'RE UP AGAINST A CREEK, THEN THAT'S TYPICALLY THE LOWEST PART OF THE SITE.
SO COULD YOU CLARIFY IS, IS THE IDEA BEHIND F TWO NO ALTERNATIVE LOCATION IS FEASIBLE IF, IF, IF A DEVELOPER IS SHOWING THAT THAT A IN IN CHANNEL WET POND NEEDS TO GO AT THE LOW POINT ON THE SITE, UM, AND THEY'D HAVE TO PUMP TO A DETENTION POND, WHICH DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE TO GET IT OUT OF THE IN-CHANNEL AREA, IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN BY FEASIBLE? AND WOULD STAFF ALLOW IN-CHANNEL WET PONDS IN THAT SORT OF SITUATION? UM, SO THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, F ONE, TWO AND THREE ALL ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET.
AND SO ONE IS ALSO REQUIRED, SO IT WOULD BE, UM, PART OF A PUBLIC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT OR A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.
SO I GUESS THE IDEA IS THAT IF THE PROGRAM OR THE THE PROPOSAL WAS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFIT OVER WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE REQUIRED THEN AND THERE WAS NO OTHER FEASIBLE LOCATION, THEN IT WOULD BE ALLOWED.
SO I'M TRYING TO THINK THIS IS, THIS IS GONNA BE MORE IMPACTFUL FOR SMALLER SITES.
UH, OBVIOUSLY LARGER SITES WILL HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY ON WHERE THEY PUT THIS SORT OF DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE.
BUT IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS MAY NOT IMPACT NECESSARILY SMALLER SITES CUZ THEY MIGHT FALL UNDER CERTAIN
[03:40:01]
REDEVELOPMENT EXEMPTIONS? IT, IT DEPENDS.UM, SOME SMALLER SITES MIGHT, BUT I DON'T, I MEAN, I THINK THAT WE'VE SEEN THESE COME IN ON SITES THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY SMALL.
UM, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S ONLY GOING TO AFFECT THOSE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, A SMALL SITE WOULD HAVE MORE, UM, REASON TO REQUEST A VARIANCE THAN A LARGER SITE BECAUSE IT HAS LESS FLEXIBILITY.
AND, AND I ASSUME IF THE GOAL HERE IS TO PROTECT THE RIPARIAN HABITAT OF A CHANNEL OF A CREEK OR WHATEVER YOU, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO REAL WAY TO URGE THOSE TWO, YOU KNOW, HAVE SOME SORT OF INCREASED STANDARD OF DESIGN AND STILL HAVE IT IN CHANNEL AND PROTECT THE REPAIRING HABITAT.
I MEAN, IS THERE ANY WAY TO MAKE ALL OF THAT WORK? I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THESE USUALLY MEAN IS BUILDING A WALL IN THE CHANNEL TO PROVIDE DETENTION.
UM, AND SO THAT THAT IS VERY DAMAGING TO THE CREEK JUST BUILDING IT AND, YOU KNOW, GETTING CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT DOWN THERE.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT NEED TO ASK QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY.
I GUESS, ARE WE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION HERE OR ARE WE, UM, WHAT DO YOU WANNA DO? I'M TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO SOMEHOW ALLOW, IS THERE A VARIANCE PROCESS? LIKE, AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT MISSING MIDDLE AND AFFORDABILITY, YOU KNOW, THESE, THESE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE COULD THIS END UP BEING IN OUR MISSING MIDDLE CONVERSATIONS THAT IF IT WAS A MISSING MIDDLE AND AFFORDABILITY, COULD, COULD THIS BE CONSIDERATION VERSUS ONLY PUBLIC COUPLE? I HEARD ANOTHER QUESTION.
IS THERE A VARIANCE PROCESS FOR THIS? YES, THERE WOULD BE A VARIANCE PROCESS.
AND CAN WE CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION INTO MISSING MIDDLE AS A POTENTIAL? BECAUSE WE'VE TAKEN THAT OUT TO BE DISCUSSED LATER, BUT I SEE AS POTENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS, SOMEBODY'S DOING LIKE THERE WAS A 10% AFFORDABLE MORE THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER THESE THINGS.
CAN THAT BE INSERTED? THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M WANTING TO, TO DO.
YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY CUZ THERE'S SITES IN LIKE INFILL SITES THAT HAVE, CAUSE RIGHT NOW INSIDE OF AUSTIN, ALL THAT'S LEFT ARE DIFFICULT SITES.
AND IF SOMEONE'S DOING SOMETHING THAT IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT AND IT'S A MISSING MIDDLE.
AND TO ME THE ALTERNATIVE IS YOU LOSE A BUNCH OF HOUSING OR YOU PUT IT IN CHANNEL.
MAYBE WE SHOULD CONSIDER VARIANCE PROJECT PROCESS FOR THAT OR CONSIDER IT IN THE MISSING MIDDLE CONVERSATIONS.
SO COMMISSIONERS, I MEAN WE COULD JUST MOVE IT TO THE MISSING MIDDLE CONVERSATIONS TO ADDRESS THIS PIECE.
HOW WOULD WE DO THAT? YOU KNOW, I MEAN IN GENERAL, I WELCOME HAVING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW OUR LAND USE REGULATIONS NEGATIVELY AFFECT ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT'S EASIER TO PUSH BACK ON WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS THAN ASK FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT OR COMPATIBILITY WAIVERS, THAT SORT OF THING.
AND SO I WOULD WELCOME THAT TYPE OF CONVERSATION, UM, IN GENERAL.
SO DO WE WANT JUST A SUGGESTION, DO WE WANNA FRAME THIS? I LIKE THE LAST IDEA'S KIND OF GIVING RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL.
AND I THINK THAT MIGHT BE MY RECOMMENDED DIRECTION IS, UH, KIND OF SUGGESTING COUNCIL LOOK AT THE IMPACTS OF THIS ON OUR RIGHT, UH, HOUSING.
SO, UM, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT FOR THIS SECTION THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT TO, UH, AFFORDAB AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENTS, WELL, YOU KNOW, PROJECTS WITH AFFORDABILITY AS WELL AS OUR MISSING MIDDLE AND, UH, ALLOW, CONSIDER ALLOWING A PATH TO, UH, TO ADAPT TO THAT I GUESS.
SO LET'S GO AND, UH, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? YEAH, LET'S GO AND, UH, LET'S CLEAN THAT UP JUST A LITTLE BIT.
UM,
OH NO, I WAS SAYING CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? OKAY.
TRYING TO MAKE GOOD NOTES, BUT I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT.
UM, YOU, YOU HAD TWO ELEMENTS MISSING, MIDDLE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING YOU WANT TO COVER.
TRYING TO WHERE THOSE THINGS ARE BEING CONSIDERED TO ALLOW FOR, UH, CONSIDER ALLOWING.
SO IF, UH, TO ALLOW THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE ONLY IF, AND THEN THREE IN POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, I GUESS TO ADD A CONSIDERATION FOR MISSING MIDDLE AND PROJECTS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT.
[03:45:01]
CUZ IT'S JUST A CONSIDERATION CUZ IT'S IF, AND THEN WE ADD THAT, RUN THAT THROUGH ONE MORE TIME.SO THIS WOULD BE PARTICULARLY LOOKING AT THE IN CHANNEL DETENTION BASINS AND IN GENERAL, WE BONDS ALLOWANCE RIGHT TO, TO CON RIGHT TO CONSIDER THAT FOR THAT BECAUSE WE'RE LANDING PUBLIC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.
AND TO ME, WHEN WE ARE OFFERING HOUSING OF THIS TYPE, IT IS THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT.
SO, UM, AND OFTENTIMES WE'RE DEALING WITH DIFFICULT SITES AND SMALL SITES ALSO.
SO, SO A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO PROVIDE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THESE, UM, DETENTION IN CHANNEL PONDS, UM, AND DETEN IN CHANNEL DETENTION BASINS AND IN CHANNEL WET PONDS ALLOWED IN CRITICAL QUALITY ZONES, UM, UH, FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ALLOWING FOR MISSING MIDDLE AND, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, YOU KNOW, PROJECTS THAT HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT COMMISSIONER, SHE MIGHT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
SORRY, I'M LOOKING AT THIS RIGHT NOW.
MAKE SURE I HAVE MY RIGHT SECTION OF, SO WE COULD SAY WHERE WE HAVE, UM, PROPOSED AS PART OF A, SO IT READS IN CHANNEL DETENTION BASED IN CHANNEL WEB POND ARE ALLOWED IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE ONLY IF PROPOSED IS PART OF A PUBLIC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT OR PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.
WE COULD ALSO SAY, OR MISSING MIDDLE PROJECT OR ANY PROJECT WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO WE CAN ADD IT INTO THAT, RIGHT? DOES THAT WORK? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S FINE.
THAT, SO IT'S A SUGGESTION TO CANCEL, TO ADD THOSE, OR WE JUST WANNA MAKE THAT, TO ADD IT TO NUMBER LINE.
THESE ARE ALL RECOMMENDATIONS? YES.
SO WE KIND OF WRANGLED WITH THAT FOR A WHILE.
UH, SO IT'S ADDING TO ELEMENTS WITHIN THAT CODE AND STAFF DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE AT THE MICROPHONE.
IT WOULD BE OUR STRONG PREFERENCE THAT YOU ASK COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE IMPACTS OF THIS WE'RE WORKING ON.
AND THERE'S NO EASY WAY TO PULL DATA ABOUT THE NUMBER OF, OF THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS, BUT WE THINK IT IS VERY, VERY SMALL MM-HMM.
UM, BUT, UH, AGAIN, I, I THINK, UM, WHAT I DON'T WANT IS FOR THIS TO RESULT IN AFFORDABLE DEVELOPMENTS THAT THEN HAVE CREEKS WITH HORRIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ADJACENT TO THEM.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE TRADING ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF ADJACENT CREEKS THAT COULD BE AMENITIES FOR, UH, A POTENTIAL WIN THAT WE'RE NOT EVEN SURE IS, IS GOING TO BE WIDELY IMPACTFUL.
UM, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S JUST WHAT I, I'D HOPE YOU WOULD CONSIDER MM-HMM.
SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS, UH, I'M JUST GONNA THROW THIS OUT.
UM, THIS STAFF IS ASKING US TO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL TO CONSIDER THE IMPACTS OF THESE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO REMOVE THESE OPTIONS.
UM, AND, BUT FOR US, FOR COUNCIL TO LOOK AT THE IMPACTS ON MISSING MIDDLE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHAT IF WE SAID THROUGH A VARIANCE PROCESS? SO RATHER THAN SAYING THAT YOU JUST GET IT RIGHT, THEN THEY, THEY, THEY NEED TO ASK, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT PROCESS, WE WANT COUNCIL TO SPECIFICALLY KNOW OUR MESSAGE.
LET'S RUN THIS BY ONE MORE TIME.
CAN I RECOMMEND SOMETHING AGAIN? SURE.
SO THIS WOULD BE, I THINK, UM, RATHER THAN GOING TO THE VAS PROCESS AND JUST NOT HAVING A DEX CHANGE, THE, AND I'M JUST TAKING THE LANGUAGE FROM WHAT'S IN THERE RIGHT NOW.
SO WE WOULD SAY THIS WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT, GENERAL AMENDMENT, NOT A TEXT AMENDMENT.
CONSIDER ALLOWING IN-CHANNEL DETENTION BASINS AND IN-CHANNEL WET BONDS IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE IF PROPOSED AS PART OF A MISSING MIDDLE PROJECT OR PROJECT WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I MEAN, YEAH, IT'S THE SAME THING.
YEAH, JUST TRYING TO CLEAN UP, BUT DON'T STICK IT IN THERE.
SO THIS WOULD NOT BE A TEXT CHANGE.
THANK YOU FOR TYPING THAT OUT AND GIVING US SOME STRAIGHTFORWARD LANGUAGE FOR THAT.
UM, SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I DON'T THINK WE HAD A SECOND ON THIS.
COMMISSIONER ZA MUCH OF MY CHE UH, ANY DISCUSSION FOR OR AGAINST COMMISSIONER COX WHO WANTS SPEAK FOR AGAINST? AGAINST? OKAY.
UM, ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS JUST WALK UP AND DOWN SHELL CREEK TO SEE A BUNCH OF STUFF THAT BUNCH OF STRUCTURES, WHETHER THEY'RE DRAINING STRUCTURES OR WHATEVER THAT SHOULDN'T BE THERE THAT ARE CAUSING ISSUES.
UM, I, I, I REALLY, UH, APPRECIATE STAFF'S COMMENT ABOUT THEY DON'T WANT TO UNINTENTIONALLY HAVE A BUNCH OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS THAT THEN HAVE A BAD CREEK NEXT TO THEM BECAUSE
[03:50:01]
THEY'RE PUTTING ALL THESE WALLS IN, IN, IN THE RIPARIAN ZONE.I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE MAINTENANCE ASPECT OF IT BECAUSE WHAT I'VE SEEN IS THAT THESE STRUCTURES THAT ARE WITHIN REPAIRING ZONES END UP REQUIRING A LOT MORE MAINTENANCE TO CORRECT THE EROSION.
STAFF DOESN'T HAVE TIME OR MONEY TO DEAL WITH IT.
AND SO THESE THINGS JUST END UP DEGRADING AND NO ONE BENEFITS FROM IT.
I WOULD RATHER WE APPROACH THIS AS A WAY TO INCREASE ENTITLEMENTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THIS RATHER THAN ALLOWING THEM TO DO THINGS THAT WE KNOW ARE, ARE NOT GOOD, THAT ARE NOT BENEFICIAL TO THE DEVELOPER, THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR BENEFICIAL TO THE ENVIRONMENT OR BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY.
SO I'D RATHER ATTACK THIS IN THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING PORTION BY INCREASING ENTITLEMENTS RATHER THAN ALLOWING THESE DEVELOPMENTS TO DO THAT SORT OF STUFF.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M, I WOULD OPPOSE THIS.
UM, SO WE JUMPED TO SPEAKING AGAINST ANYONE SPEAK FOR THIS MOTION? UH, COMMISSIONER ZAR.
I'LL, I'LL JUST MAKE A QUICK, UH, COMMENT.
I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER GO, YOU'RE SAYING MAKES SENSE AND I THINK I'M, I'M FINE WITH THIS MOVING FORWARD, CONSIDERING THAT WE'RE NOT AMENDING THE ACTUAL COURT HERE, WE'RE JUST ASKING A CONSIDERATION OF, UM, COUNCIL TO CONSIDER WHAT I THINK WHAT COMMISS IS BRINGING UP.
SO AGAIN, UNDER THAT CONSIDERATION, COUNCIL CAN DECIDE TO PUT IN THE MISSING MIDDLE PIECE, LOOK AT INCENTIVES OR WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE, BUT HOPEFULLY THIS SIGNALS AN INTENT OF WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT.
UM, ANY AGAINST, I'LL SAY, OH, COMMISSIONER MITCH CLER, GO AHEAD.
YEAH, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SAFETY ISSUES.
SO WE DON'T WANNA UNINTENTIONED, WHILE WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE KIND OF HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT THAT WE NEED, WE DON'T WANNA UNINTENTIONALLY PUT PEOPLE IN HARM'S WAY OR CREATE SECONDARY EFFECTS.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S, I I I FELT THAT THE LANGUAGE MIGHT HAVE BEEN, THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING WHAT WAS THE INTENT, CUZ I, I FOUND IT A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO REWORD IT.
UH, WELL THAT WOULD COME AS AN AMENDMENT SUBSTITUTION SOME FORM LIKE THAT.
SO I KNOW NOT THAT IS AN OPTION IF THIS GETTING LATE.
SO, UM, UH, WHERE ARE WE ON THE COUNT? DO WE HAVE TWO TWO ON FOREIGN AGAINST? YEAH.
SO I'M JUST, ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS FOR, I'M JUST, I MEAN I'LL JUST, I MEAN, PART OF IT IS, UM, IS TO GET THE MESSAGE FORWARD.
WE HAVE ASKED MANY TIMES, YOU KNOW, IN THIS PROCESS ABOUT INCREASING THE ENTITLEMENTS, BUT THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN LIKE, OH, THAT'S NOT OUR PREVIEW.
SO THIS ISN'T THE INTENT OF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, AND I COMPLETELY AGREE ABOUT THE CONS, YOU KNOW, CONCERN IS THAT STAFF IS BROUGHT UP.
BUT UNTIL WE'RE GIVEN THAT MECHANISM TO BE ABLE TO INCREASE THE ENTITLEMENTS, I MEAN, WHAT ARE WE STUCK WITH? WE'RE STUCK WITH CONTINUOUS WILLING AWAY DEVELOPABLE AREA.
BUT IF COUNCIL CAN LOOK AT IT, SAYS, WE AIN'T GONNA LET YOU DO THAT.
OKAY, WELL FINE THEN WE ARE GONNA KEEP PUSHING ON THE OTHER END.
BUT THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO KEEP SENDING A MESSAGE TO COUNCIL THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF, UH, GIVING ENTITLEMENTS IF WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO WHITTLE AWAY AT DEVELOPABLE AREA.
COMMISSIONERS OUR SURE MIGHT RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT AND SEE IF THIS CAPTURES, UH, COMMISSIONER AL WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
SO THE MOTION BEFORE US IS CONSIDER ALLOWING IN-CHANNEL DETENTION BASINS AND IN-CHANNEL WET PONDS IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE IF PROPOSED AS PART OF A MISSING MIDDLE PROJECT OR A PROJECT WITH AFFORDABLE UNITS.
WE WOULD SAY OUR PROJECT WITH AFFORDABLE UNITS, WITH THE INTENT TO EASE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH PROJECTS WHILE MEANINGFULLY ADDRESSING ALL HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS MAKE ME SO HAPPY.
DO YOU WANNA, OKAY, SO IS THIS AN AMENDMENT? OKAY.
THIS SINCE THAT WAS ALREADY ON THE YES, YES.
MOTION BY MR. ZA, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TALLER.
DO WE NEED, UH, MR. COX? GO AHEAD.
UH, ARE YOU SPEAKING? OH, WELL, YOU SPEAKING FOR AGAIN, UH, I, I'M GONNA SPEAK AGAINST AGAIN, AND, AND JUST POINT OUT THAT IT'S NOT JUST HEALTH AND SAFETY, IT'S ALSO THE ENVIRONMENT.
WE DON'T HAVE TO CHOOSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR PROTECTING OUR REPAIRING HABITATS.
IF WE CAN INCREASE ENTITLEMENTS OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THIS THROUGH THE MISSING MIDDLE.
HE DIDN'T SAY HEALTH FOR WHO IT COULD BE HEALTH FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.
BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I JUST, I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS NOT THE WAY WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS.
YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T REMOVE SEAT BELTS FROM A CAR BECAUSE YOU WANNA MAKE THE CAR MORE AFFORDABLE FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD EXPENSIVE CARS WITH SEAT BELTS.
SO I, I JUST, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ENTITLEMENTS ISSUE UNDER PART TWO WITH THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING COMPONENT.
I THINK THAT'S THE BETTER WAY TO DO THIS.
I DIDN'T GET ANYBODY SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
[03:55:01]
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.COMMISSIONERS ARE I'LL, I'LL JUST SAY QUICKLY, I THINK THE IDEA HERE IS DEFINITELY I THINK ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS THAT COMMISSIONER MOST DOLLAR HAD RAISED.
UM, AND THEN I WOULD SAY, COMMISSIONER COX, IF THERE'S AN AMENDMENT THAT I THINK WORKS FOR YOU, WE CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.
UM, ONE THING I'LL JUST ADD IS THERE TO TORES COMMISSIONER, UM, SHE'S IDEA THERE IS AN ITEM ON COUNCIL'S AGENDA THIS THURSDAY 74, WHICH ESSENTIALLY LOOKS AT EXACTLY THAT OF SEEING HOW WE CAN, UH, FIGURE OUT INCENTIVES OR OTHER WAYS TO ADDRESS ANY CHALLENGES THAT WE CREATE IN DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO, UM, ANY OF THE CODE CHANGES THAT WE'RE DOING NOW OR PREVIOUSLY.
AND I THINK I APPRECIATE THAT FROM COUNCIL BECAUSE I THINK IT ADDRESSES SOME OF THE CONCERN THAT WE'RE SEEING HERE TODAY.
F UH, WELL, COMMISSIONER COX, HOLD ON.
SO WE NEED, I'M GONNA MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.
WE CAN DO, YOU CAN DO A SUBSTITUTION TO THE AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE NOW CONSIDERING.
WELL, I'LL, I'LL MAKE A SUBSTITUTION.
WELL, WHATEVER IT ENDS UP BEING.
MY, MY SUBSTITUTE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WOULD BE, UM, HAVE STAFF AND STAFFING COUNSEL EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL IMPACT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS OF WHATEVER 1221 IS, WHICH IS WHATEVER SECTION THAT IS SECTION F.
AND PROPOSE PROPOSE REVISIONS TO ENTITLEMENTS OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS COMMENSURATE TO THE IMPACT OF THIS CHANGE.
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT ONE MORE TIME? OH GOD.
SO STAFF HAVE STAFF AND COUNSEL EVALUATING CONSIDER WHAT IS THIS SECTION, UH, UH, CHAPTER 25 8 2 61 F THE IMPACT OF THAT SECTION, SORRY.
UM, TO THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND PROPOSE ENTITLEMENT CHANGES TO MITIGATE THOSE IMPACTS.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT COMMISSIONER COX? I WAS WONDERING, I MEAN, CUZ I, I LIKE, IT DOESN'T DISAGREE AND IT DOESN'T AGREE WITH THIS ONE, AND I ALMOST LIKE, I LIKE BOTH OF 'EM AS A MESSAGE TO COUNCIL.
I MEAN IT WELL, I, I DON'T AGREE TO THE FIRST ONE.
SO CHAIR, IF I CAN JUST SAY ONE THING JUST IN TERMS OF THE TIER OF THE AMENDMENTS.
UM, WE'RE ON THE AMENDMENT THAT I PROPOSE BASED ON COMMISSIONER MUTOS AND, UM, COMMISSIONER COX, YOU'RE MAKING A SUBSTITUTE TO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT THAT I HAD SUGGESTED.
SO WE ACTUALLY NEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE AMENDMENT THAT I MADE BASED ON COMMISSIONER MARSH DOER, AND THEN WE CAN CONSIDER YOUR SUBSTITUTE, RIGHT, BECAUSE IS THAT, IS THAT ACCURATE? COMMISSIONER COX, YOU WERE MAKING A, A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT OR THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.
HE WAS SUBSTITUTING THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.
CAUSE ARE YOU ON MUTE? COMMISSIONER P I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
HEY, HEY, I, COMMISSIONER SHAY AND AAR DESERVE A VOTE ON THEIR AMENDMENT.
SO YEAH, WHATEVER ENABLES THAT I'M FINE WITH THAT.
SO HE DIDN'T GET A SECOND EITHER.
YEAH, SO, SO IT'S, IT'S NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.
COMMISSIONER COX, ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT THAT COMMISSIONER SHE AND I HAD WITH THE AMENDMENT FROM COMMISSIONER AND THEN YOU WOULD STILL MAKE YOUR SEPARATE MOTION? IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU? SURE, LET'S DO THAT.
SINCE YOU DID NOT GET A SECOND, WE GO BACK TO THE AMENDMENT, UM, FROM COMMISSION FROM ME, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MO STROLLER, WHICH JUST ADDS THE WORDING.
LET ME FOLLOW THROUGH TO MAKE SURE I SAY, UM, WITH, WITH THE INTENT TO EASE DEVELOPMENTS OF SUCH PROJECTS WHILE MEANINGFULLY ADDRESSING ALL HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS.
SO THAT'S THE, DO WE NEED ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? LET'S, NO, IF NOT, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE.
SO THIS IS THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT, UH, FROM COMMISSIONER AAR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MUTO.
UH, LETS THOSE ON THE DIAS, UH, WE HAVE THREE, FOUR, UH, THOSE ON THE SCREEN THAT ARE IN FAVOR.
LET ME SEE THOSE IN FAVOR FIRST.
THOSE ON THE DS AGAINST, AGAINST THE AMENDMENT.
AND THOSE, UH, WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, LET ME GET YOUR NAMES HERE.
[04:00:01]
AND COX.SO, UH, FLORES, I'M COMMISSIONER FLORES.
HOW DID YOU VOTE ON THIS SCREEN? OKAY, THANK YOU.
SO THAT MOTION, IF MY ACCOUNTANT'S RIGHT, THAT AMENDMENT PASSED RIGHT? SEVEN TO FOUR.
NOW WE'RE TO THE MAIN AMENDMENT.
AND SO WE'RE ENTERTAINING A SUBSTITUTION TO THE MAIN AMENDMENT.
I MEAN THAT'S COMMISSIONER COX, WHETHER DIDN'T EITHER COMMISSIONER COX, YOU CAN DO A SUBSTITUTE TO THIS AMENDMENT OR YOU CAN LET THIS PASS AND HAVE AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT.
YES, WE CAN ENTERTAIN ANOTHER AMENDMENT.
I MEAN, SINCE THAT PASSED, I, I'LL JUST WITHDRAW ALL OF THAT.
SO WE'RE, SO WE'RE BACK TO THE MAIN AMENDMENT AS AMENDED.
SO LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ONE MORE TIME.
DID THIS IS WITH THE AMENDMENT AMENDED LANGUAGE.
CONSIDER ALLOWING IN-CHANNEL DETENTION BASINS AND IN-CHANNEL WET PODS IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE IF PROPOSED AS PART OF A MISSING MIDDLE PROJECT.
OUR PROJECT WITH AFFORDABLE UNITS, WITH THE INTENT TO EASE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH PROJECTS WHILE MEANINGFULLY ADDRESSING ALL HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE.
UM, THOSE ON THE DIAS IN FAVOR.
ALL RIGHT, THOSE ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR.
THOSE ON THE DI AGAINST AND THOSE ON THE, UH, SCREEN VOTING AND OPPOSITION.
WELL, IT'S, WE'VE GOT FOUR ONE HERE AND WE'VE GOT, YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT PASSES.
YOU SEE SCHNEIDER? COX? LET ME, UH, THOMPSON, SO WE'VE GOT THAT FAILS.
WE, WE HAVE THOMPSON WESTER HEMPLE, UM, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, COMMISSIONER SHAW, COMMISSIONER COX, VOTING AGAINST THAT ITEM.
UH, COMMISSIONER AAR CHILD, GO AHEAD.
AND JUST FOR THE SAKE OF PROCESS, I'LL GO AHEAD AND RESTATE WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER COX HAD.
UM, SO THIS WOULD BE STAFF AND COUNCIL, UM, STAFF AND COUNCIL TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF 25 DASH EIGHT DASH 2 61 F ON MISSING MIDDLE PROJECTS IN PROJECTS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ENTITLEMENTS OF THOSE PROJECTS COMMENSURATE TO THIS CHANGE.
UM, AND IT'S, DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? OKAY, SECOND BY.
SO IS THAT COMMISSIONER COX SECONDED BY SHE, UH, ANY FOUR AGAINST DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? GOOD.
UM, COMMISSIONER COX, GO AHEAD.
HEY, WAIT, SO IS COMMISSIONERS ARE MAKING THE MOTION OR AM I MAKING THE MOTION? I THINK HE READ WHAT YOU HAD SAID.
I HONESTLY JUST DID IT FOR PROCEDURAL PURPOSES.
SO COMMISSIONER COX, IT'S YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER SHAY IS SECONDING IS SECONDING.
ARE YOU FINE WITH THE MOTION? YEAH, SORRY, WE DIDN'T EVEN ASK YOU.
WELL, I WAS GONNA MAKE, UH, I, I DON'T THINK I INCLUDE THE MISSING MIDDLE PART OF IT.
I THINK I SAID AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.
UM, I KIND OF WANT TO INCENTIVIZE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY LIMITING IT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS OR DEVELOPMENTS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO, I DON'T KNOW, COMMISSIONER SHAY, IF THAT CHANGES YOUR SECOND OR NOT JUST TO, TO REMOVE THE MISSING MIDDLE, BUT KEEP THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
SO I'M OKAY WITH LEAVING IT JUST AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE WE, BECAUSE OF WHAT COMMISSIONERS ARE MENTIONED IS COMING FOR US AS WELL AS WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT MOVING THE MISSING MIDDLE, UH, CONVERSATION TO, UH, TO CONTINUE ON.
IS THAT RIGHT? SO WE STILL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
POINT OF FORWARDER, WE'VE MADE A MISTAKE SINCE THIS IS NOW, HAS BEEN SECONDED.
IT'S A MOTION FOR THE, FOR THE BODY.
SO I'M GONNA MAKE A SUBSTITUTE, I'M SURE, COX, HOPEFULLY YOU'LL SUPPORT THIS.
UM, IT, IT WOULD SAY STAFF AND COUNCIL TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF 25 DASH EIGHT DASH 2 61 ON PROJECTS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PROPOSED IONS TO ENTITLEMENTS OF THOSE PROJECTS COMMENSURATE TO THIS CHANGE.
WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COX.
SO IS THAT AN AMENDMENT? THAT'S A SUBSTITUTE.
SO WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
UH, WAS THAT YOURS? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COX? DO WE NEED ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS STAFF? DO YOU WANNA COMMENT? I THINK YOU WERE COMING UP TO THE MICROPHONE.
JUST WE, WE CRUNCHED SOME NUMBERS.
THIS HASN'T COME UP AS SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE'VE DEALT WITH, UH, GETTING FEEDBACK ON.
UH, AND SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE, BUT THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE OF THESE CONSTRUCTED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, JUST JUST TO TALK ABOUT SCALE.
[04:05:01]
AHEAD AND, UH, SO THIS IS THE, THIS IS SUBSTITUTE MOTION.SO LET'S GO ON THOSE ON THE DIAS.
UM, IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COX.
UH, RAISE YOUR HANDS AGAIN REAL QUICK.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS, UH, SUBSTITUTE MOTION? UH, GOT RAISE EM A LITTLE HIGHER, FOLKS.
ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S, UH, THOSE AGAINST ON THE DIAS.
AND THEN LET'S, UH, GO ON THOSE ON THE SCREEN VOTING AGAINST, FIRST OF ALL, AND THEN WE GOT THOSE ABSTAINING.
ALL RIGHT, SCHNEIDER, SO THAT MOTION FAILS.
UM, AND WE HAVE SHAW TO THOMPSON, UM, ANDERSON VOTING AGAINST AND COMMISSIONERS MOTO CHER HEMPLE AND COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, IF I GOT THAT RIGHT.
ANY OTHER ATTEMPTS, ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS WE NEED TO CONSIDER THIS EVENING? COMMISSIONERS ARE CHAIR, I HAVE DOEL.
UM, ONE IS, AND THIS WAS ACTUALLY IN OUR ORIGINAL CONSIDERATION THAT KIND OF DROPPED OUT, BUT, UM, UM, I THINK WE DO CONSIDER THIS AND HOPEFULLY STAFF CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO IT.
SO THIS WOULD SAY, AND I'LL SPEAK TO IT IN A SECOND, DELAY, ADOPTION OF CHANGES RELATED TO NEW UTILITIES, MAJOR REPLACEMENTS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE IN 25 DASH EIGHT DASH 2 61.
STAFF, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? SURE.
UH, THIS IS AN ITEM THAT, UH, WE'RE WORKING WITH, UH, OUR, OUR PARTNERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY ON AND ARE REQUESTING, UH, MORE TIME TO DISCUSS WITH, WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
ANY OTHER Q AND A FROM COMMISSIONERS IF WE NEED IT? SO IF I CAN JUST CLA CHAIR, IF I CAN JUST CLARIFY.
SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A, UM, STAFF, STAFF HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS AND WE'RE JUST GIVING THEM THE TIME THAT'S NEEDED.
IT'S REALLY A, A HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENT.
IT'S NOT A SUBJECTIVE AND STAFF AGREES WITH IT.
UH, THE IDEA WAS WE JUST KIND OF MISSED THIS IN OUR MOTION SHEET.
SO IF THAT, I'M COMMISSIONER COX.
OH, GOT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COX.
LET'S, UH, DO WE NEED ANY DISCUSSION OR WE CAN GO AND VOTE ANY OPPOSITION OF VOTING? LET'S GO AND VOTE THOSE ON THE DI IN FAVOR AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
UM, YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE? YEAH.
SOUND LIKE THIS QUICK AS WELL.
SO THIS IS NOT A TAX CHANGE OR ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT.
IT SAYS, WORK WITH AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT STAFF TO ALIGN 25 DASH TWO DASH 1 0 7, UH, SUBSECTION F SUBSECTION FOUR WITH REQUIREMENTS IN THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL TO MEET STAFF IN 10.
LET'S SEE, DO YOU NEED ANY, UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND REPEAT IT.
SO WORK WITH THE AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT STAFF TO ALIGN 25 DASH TWO SEVEN F FOUR WITH REQUIREMENTS IN THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL TO MEET STAFF INTENT.
SO STAFF, DO YOU HAVE ANY, COULD YOU REPEAT THE, THE CODE CITATION ONE ONE MORE TIME? SURE.
UM, THAT'S 25 DASH TWO DASH SEVEN F FOUR.
THIS IS ACTUALLY THE REQUIREMENT FOR RUNOFF AND PARKING LOTS TO GO INTO GREEN SPACES.
UM, UH, YES, WE ARE HAPPY TO CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH ATD.
SO JUST, JUST TO, HONESTLY, I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT GETS MISSED WHEN WE'RE DOING SOMETHING SO COMPLICATED.
SO OUR DCM ACTUALLY IN SECTION 9.3 0.2 IN GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA.
SUBSECTION J HAS A REQUIREMENT THAT SAYS SAFETY BARRIERS, FENCING, WHEEL STOPS, CURVES, OR OTHER RESTRICTIVE BARRIERS.
AND DIRECTIONAL MARKERS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO SHORE SAFETY, EFFICIENT UTILIZATION PROTECTION TO LANDSCAPING AND TO PREVENT ENCROACHMENT ONTO ADJOINING PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
SO ESSENTIALLY WE HAVE STAFF SAYING THAT WE CAN NOW ACTUALLY HAVE RIBBONS THAT ALLOW FOR RUNOFF TO GO INTO GREEN SPACES, BUT OUR DCM ACTUALLY SAYS THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE RESTRICTIVE BARRIERS AGAINST THE GREEN SPACE.
[04:10:01]
CONFLICTING THINGS THAT JUST NEED TO BE RESOLVED.UH, SO WE HAVE NOT GOT A SECOND ON THIS YET, SO ARE WE CL DO WE NEED ANY CLARIFICATIONS? COMMISSIONER COX? GO AHEAD.
DO WE NEED ANY, UH, ANY COMMISSIONERS WANNA TO SPEAK FORWARD AGAINST HERE? SAYING NONE? LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE THAT'S ON THE DS IN FAVOR.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS? ALL RIGHT.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO JUST TAKE A FINAL VOTE ON THE BASE AMENDMENT AND AS AMENDED IF, IS THAT, UH, WOULD THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS? MR. RIVERA? UH, CHAIR, IF YOU COULD BEAR WITH ME JUST ONE SECOND.
I HAVE AN INQUIRY TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
CHAIR COMMISSION LEAVES ON ENVER.
SO IF WE COULD JUST HAVE A, UH, THE BASE MOTION, WHICH WAS, UH, COX HEMPLE AS AMENDED SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME, I'M SORRY.
WE'LL, JUST, UM, IF WE CAN HAVE SOMEONE MOVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO VOTE ON.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED.
UH, AND JUST FOR QUICK, I WANNA THANK THE WORKING GROUP.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TACKLING THIS GIANT ISSUE.
I KNOW WE STRUNG THIS OUT A LITTLE LONGER THAN YOU PREFERRED, BUT I THINK, UH, WE GOT TO REALLY, UH, DO THE ENGAGEMENT AND REALLY GET SOME GOOD, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOU AND CANCEL.
SO WITH THAT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A FINAL VOTE.
UM, SO THOSE IN FAVOR, UH, ON THE DIAS OF, I'M LOOKING AROUND.
SO THAT'S, UH, THAT'S EVERYONE AND THAT'S EVERYONE.
SO LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS IN OUR TIME.
WE HAVE ALL LIGHTED, WE HAVE A FEW MORE ITEMS, BUT I THINK WE CAN GET THROUGH THOSE QUICKLY.
[25. Discuss and consider establishing a working group to review upcoming code amendments related to compatibility and residential use in commercially zoning properties. (Sponsors - Chair Shaw and Commissioner Azhar)]
UH, WE'RE DOWN TO ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION.THE FIRST ONE, I'LL JUST READ IT, UH, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW UPCOMING CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO COMPATIBILITY AND RESIDENTIAL USE IN COMMERCIALLY, UH, ZONING PROPERTIES.
THIS WAS, UH, SPONSORED BY COMMISSION, UH, SHERIFF SHAW AND, UH, COMMISSIONER AZAR.
AND WE HAVE A NUMBER OF WORKING GROUPS, UH, GOING.
BUT THIS IS A COUNCIL DIRECTION THAT'S GOT A LOT OF, UH, INTEREST IN THE PUBLIC.
AND SO WE DO THINK WE NEED A WORKING GROUP.
THIS WILL GO TO, UH, CODES AND, UM, ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE 19TH.
AND THEN, UH, SO THE CHALLENGE FOR US IS WE'VE GOT OCTOBER 25TH, UH, AND I WANNA SAY, I WANNA JUST RECOGNIZE, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, FLORES WILL BE LEADING US IN THAT MEETING IS OUR CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER SHALE WILL BE ASSISTING.
UH, AND I THINK GIVEN OUR LOW NUMBERS, UH, WE MAY NOT WANT TO TAKE, UM, TAKE THAT UP, THEN IT DOESN'T GIVE A WORKING GROUP MUCH TIME.
BUT THEN WE'RE UP AGAINST NOVEMBER 8TH, WHICH IS THE ELECTIONS.
DO, I MEAN, THAT'S A LOT GOING ON THAT EVENING.
UH, IF I MAYBE JUST GET A SENSE FROM THOSE HERE TONIGHT.
AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU DON'T KNOW WHO MIGHT BE HERE ON THE DIAS ON ELECTION NIGHT, YOU WILL NOT.
SO HOW MANY THINK THAT POTENTIALLY? OH, VIRTUAL, VIRTUAL OR IN PERSON? JUST A QUICK SHOW OF HANDS IF YOU THINK YOU CAN MAKE IT THAT EVENING RATHER NOT BE IF.
SO WE MAY GET HALF OF US HERE.
THOSE ON THE SCREEN, THOSE THAT CAN ATTEND THE MEETING ON THE EIGHTH.
SO ONE OF THE, UH, THINGS THE COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER FOR THAT, UH, NOVEMBER 8TH MEETING IS TO HAVE A END, UH, TIME CERTAIN OF, UM, 8:00 PM OR 9:00 PM OKAY.
IF THEY'RE HERE, WE GOTTA HEAR IT.
[04:15:01]
NOVEMBER 8TH AGENDA, THE, GO AHEAD.THE CONSENT ONLY AGENDA MEETING ON NOVEMBER 15TH, IS THERE A REASON WHY THAT'S CONSENT ONLY? THANKS, CHAIR COMMISSION, LADIES AND ANDREW.
SO WITH THE HOLIDAY MAKEUP DATES, UM, THAT'S ALMOST LIKE A DOUBLE UP MEETING WITH THE ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO AT 5:00 PM WE WILL BE PLANNING COMMISSION FOLLOWED BY Z PLANNING COMMISSION AT 6:00 PM GOT IT.
SO THE ONLY REASON I BRING THAT UP IS MY UNDERSTANDING IS COUNCIL WILL BE VOTING ON THIS ITEM LIKELY, UM, ON THE 30TH OF NOVEMBER.
SO IF THE NOVEMBER 8TH DOESN'T WORK, WE COULD DO NOVEMBER 15TH, BUT AFTER THAT WE'RE, WE'RE RUN OUT OF MEETING TIMES.
SO WE COULD DO OCTOBER 25TH, NOVEMBER 8TH, NOVEMBER 15TH AND STILL MEET COUNCIL'S DEADLINE.
BUT AGAIN, WE'RE STUCK IN ALL THREE MEETINGS NOT BEING SUITABLE.
YEAH, IT, IT CHAIR IS IT, IS IT ADVISABLE TO MAYBE TRY TO DO A QUORUM CHECK FOR THE 15TH MEETING? AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE I CANNOT BE AT THE 15TH MEETING.
I DIDN'T THINK THAT ONE WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC, BUT WE CAN ON THE 15TH.
ANY, LET'S COUNT THOSE THAT WILL NOT BE HERE FOR SURE.
JUST RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE HERE.
I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY MEET QUORUM ON THAT ONE, BUT AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S, WE DON'T HAVE AN HOUR.
IT'S CONSENT ONLY THE, UH, SO WHEN, WHAT, YOU SAID NOVEMBER 30TH, WHAT DAY? I THOUGHT DECEMBER 1ST.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS YES, IT'S LIKE, UM, THE WORK SESSION WOULD BE THE 30TH AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE DECEMBER 1ST COUNCIL MEETING.
SO WE HAVE A, THE OTHER OPTION, I'LL JUST THROW IT OUT, IS NOVEMBER 29TH.
WE COULD HAVE A, JUST ADDRESS THIS ITEM ONLY JUST SAY, WORK WORKING GROUP, TAKE UP WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS IF WE DECIDE TO FORM A WORKING GROUP.
I'M JUST GONNA SAY WE'RE RUNNING AT THIS PROBLEM.
AGAIN, STAFF WILL PROBABLY HAVE AN ISSUE BECAUSE IF WE PASS AMENDMENTS ON THE 29TH, IT, IT DOES NOT GIVE THEM TIME TO CONSIDER THOSE AMENDMENTS BEFORE TAKING THEM TO COUNSEL ON THE FIRST.
SO LET'S, UH, KIND OF LOOKING AT THE DATES AND KIND OF WHAT WE'RE FACED WITH, LET'S GO AND GO BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP FORMATION.
IT'S IS WHAT THIS ITEM IS ADDRESSING.
I JUST WANTED TO RUN THROUGH WHERE THE WORKING GROUP, I'D HAVE TO GO, GO AHEAD A CHAIR.
IF I MIGHT MAKE A REQUEST, CAN WE JUST PUT IT AS AN AGENDA ITEM ON ALL THREE OF THOSE OR WHATEVER WOULD BE POSSIBLE WITHIN THOSE, PERHAPS AFTER 25TH AND NOVEMBER 8TH.
AND WE CAN TRY TO FIGURE OUT WE CAN GET IT DONE.
BUT WE'LL TRY OUR BEST AS A WORKING GROUP AND OTHERS TO JUST GET AS MUCH DONE AS POSSIBLE.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION TO FORM A WORKING WELL, LET'S GO WORKING GROUP AND THEN LET'S LOOK AT A SHOW OF HANDS.
WHO WANTS TO BE ON THIS WORKING GROUP? SO SOMEBODY PLEASE RESTATE WHAT YOU JUST ASKED.
I NOT, UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY FROM STAFF TO SPEAK TO IT DIRECTLY.
ANY, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ZA, YOU'VE PROBABLY BEEN SURE THERE, THERE'S TWO ITEMS. ONE IS THE COMPATIBILITY CHANGES THAT COUNCIL HAD INITIATED.
UM, SO THOSE ARE COMING TO US.
UM, AND THEN THERE'S AN ITEM THAT, UM, HAD ALSO BEEN INITIATED BY COUNCIL THAT ESSENTIALLY WOULD BE ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SITES AS LONG AS THE MEETS CERTAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS REQUIREMENTS.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE DETAILS OF THESE TWO ITEMS LOOK LIKE, UM, BUT I KNOW STAFF IS WORKING ON THEM.
UM, AT WHICH POINT THEY WILL BECOME AVAILABLE FOR US TO REVIEW, BUT THEY ESSENTIALLY COME BACK TO US.
SO IT'S TWO, TWO OF THESE ITEMS THAT WERE, UM, PART OF COUNCIL'S AGENDA ON HOUSING AS THEY CAME OUT OF THE WORK SESSION END OF LAST YEAR.
SO WE DON'T HAVE QUITE THE SPECIFICS JUST YET.
NO, BUT GENERALLY, UM, WE HAD, UM, THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS THAT ARE SO FAR REACHING, THEY WANTED TO PULL THOSE BACK IN LINE WITH OTHER CITIES, I THINK.
AND SECONDLY, THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WAS TO FIND BETTER, ALLOWING MORE RESIDENTIAL IN COMMERCIALLY ITS OWN PROPERTIES.
AND AGAIN, THE REASON FOR FORMING IT NOW IS BECAUSE WE KEEP RUNNING INTO THIS ISSUE OF NOT FARMING A WORKING GROUP IN DIME.
SO IT'S JUST LIKE, LET'S FARM THE WORKING GROUP AND WHEN THOSE ITEMS ARE AVAILABLE TO WORKING GROUP AND START, ITS WORKING IMMEDIATELY.
SO I'LL, I MEAN, JUST CUZ I'M INVOLVED IN HOUSING WORKING GROUP AND WE KEEP MAKING MORE WORKING GROUPS THAT KEEP US FROM BEING ABLE TO HAVE ENOUGH TIME, BUT AT LEAST THIS IS PRETTY MUCH IN LINE WITH WHAT WE ARE WANTING TO DO.
SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER SHAY, AAR ANDERSON, UH, LET'S LOOKING AT THE SCREEN.
COX, WAIT, CAN, CAN, UH, RAISE YOUR HAND? YOU'RE ON THE TEAM SIR.
CAN COMMISSIONER AAR REPEAT THE TIMEFRAME REQUIREMENTS? CUZ THAT'S GONNA DEPEND, THAT'S GONNA CHANGE MY INVOLVEMENT.
UM, SO ESSENTIALLY WE KNOW AT THIS POINT THAT ANYWHERE BETWEEN OCTOBER 19TH AND NOVEMBER 30TH, SO CONSIDER END OF, OR LET'S SAY MIDDLE
[04:20:01]
OF OCTOBER TO END OF NOVEMBER, BUT WE MIGHT GET DONE EARLIER.I'M OUT HALF OF NOVEMBER, UH, TRAVELING.
SO I, I'LL PROBABLY, I'LL LET OTHERS PARTICIPATE, BUT IF THERE'S AN OPEN SLOT, I CAN TAKE IT.
BUT IF YOU CAN'T MAKE IT, THAT'S FINE.
UNLESS THERE'S OTHERS THAT KNOW THEY'LL BE COMMISSIONER MISH HOLLER.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON IS WHERE'S THOMPSON? INDICATED CHAIR COMMISSION LAYS ON ANDREW VESO.
UM, BECAUSE OF THE TIMELINE, IF WE COULD KEEP IT TO FIVE MEMBERS, AS I MAY HAVE TO HAVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH, UH, YOUR CHAIR.
UM, SO, UH, THAT MAY, UM, YOU WANNA BE HONEST, YOU COUNT, DO THOSE YOU WANNA BE ON ADAM? YOU DON'T COUNT.
I WILL NOT BE HERE UNTIL NOVEMBER 2ND, SO I CAN'T PARTICIPATE ON THAT THAT WHOLE TIME.
SO I GUESS THEN IT'S A QUESTION BETWEEN EITHER COMMISSIONER COX OR COMMISSIONER THOMPSON AND I LEAVE IT TO THE BODY.
SINCE YOUR SCHEDULE IS SOMEWHAT UNCERTAIN, DO YOU MIND IF I PULL YOU OFF THAT THIS WORKING ROOM COMMISSIONER COX? OKAY, SO THERE WE HAVE, UH, FIVE PRE REQUESTS, MR. RIVERA.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND THE MOTION OF THOSE MEMBERS ON, ON THE WORKING GROUP TO, UM, TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE UPCOMING, UH, CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO COMPATIBILITY AND RESIDENTIAL USE IN COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES.
UM, I'LL GO AND MAKE THAT MOTION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE COMMISSIONER ZA.
LET'S GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE DIAS FOR FORMATION OF THE WORKING GROUP AND THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
ALL RIGHT, I SEE ALL GREEN, I THINK.
ALL RIGHT, SO THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
[26. Discuss and consider establishing a working group to review upcoming code amendments related to Historic Design Standards. (Sponsors - Chair Shaw and Commissioner Azhar)]
UH, THE NEXT ITEM IS ANOTHER WORKING GROUP.THIS ONE SOUND LIKE IT'S GONNA HAVE A LONGER TIMELINE.
SO GOOD JOB, UH, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW UPCOMING CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO HISTORIC UH, DESIGN STANDARDS.
WE PUT THIS ON HERE, BUT GIVEN THE TIMING WE HEARD TODAY, DO WE NEED TO FORM THIS NOW OR CAN WE WAIT, WAIT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND POSTPONE, GIVE US SOME BREATHING ROOM CHAIR, COMMISSION LAY LIAISON ENVE.
SO THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT, UM, YOU MIGHT, YOU MIGHT BE, UH, EQUATING THE EQUITY WITH THE HISTORIC STANDARDS.
SO WHAT, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE TIMELINE ON THIS ONE? IT'S THE SAME TIMELINE IS THE COMPATIBILITY IN THE RESIDENTIAL.
DO WE HAVE ANY FOLKS INTERESTED? UH, DO YOU KNOW, CAN WE PULL TOGETHER ANOTHER WORKING GROUP OR DO WE WANT TO, ON THE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS, IS THERE ANY INTEREST COMMISSIONERS HERE? SO I'M MAYBE DON'T KNOW.
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WORKING GROUP.
SO IT'S GONNA GO TO CODES NOS, RIGHT.
I WAS SAY, CUZ I, I'VE DONE SOME PROJECTS UNDER THE GUIDELINES, BUT IF WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE A WORKING GROUP, THEN OKAY.
YEAH, I, I, UM, I THINK WE'RE, I'M JUST GONNA SAY THIS, I THINK WE'VE GOT A LOT GOING ON ON OUR PLATE AND THIS ONE MAYBE WE'LL LET, UH, THE CODES OR SINCE JOINT COMMITTEE AND THEN AGAIN, ANY OF YOU ALL ARE WELCOME TO GET ENGAGED IF THIS IS SOMETHING YOU HAVE A PASSION FOR, HISTORIC, UH, YOU KNOW, COMMISSION TYPE ISSUES, A LOT OF US DO.
UH, PLEASE, YOU CAN WORK ON THIS INDIVIDUALLY.
SO NOTHING THERE, UH, ANY, WE HAD NOMINATIONS, APPOINTMENTS, WE STILL HAVE A GAP, BUT WE STILL DON'T HAVE THE, OUR, UH, SOMEBODY FILLING IN FOR, UH, COMMISSIONER PRAXIS, CORRECT.
CHAIR COMMISSIONER LAYS ON THAT IS CORRECT.
USED TO HAVE VACANCY ON THE DS.
AND THAT'S ON THE SUSTAINABILITY, BUT WE GOT COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER KIND OF FILLING IN AS NEEDED ON IS THEY SUBSTITUTE.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
OH, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. COMMISSIONER ISAR, UM, CHERYL, I'LL UM, SAY TWO FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. ONE, IF WE CAN PUT NOMINATIONS TO OUR COMPATIBILITY IN RESIDENTIAL, USED IN COMMERCIALLY ZONING PROPERTIES ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT TIME, JUST IN CASE WE NEED TO RESHUFFLE PEOPLE OR OTHER PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED.I KNOW JUST TO, JUST TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY.
SO ESSENTIALLY NOMINATIONS TO OUR WORKING GROUP THAT WE JUST ESTABLISHED TODAY ON COMPATIBILITY AND RESIDENTIAL USE, OR ANDREW SELLING ME? NOPE, IT CANNOT BE DONE BECAUSE WE WILL ALREADY HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT AND WE WILL HAVE MET QUORUM.
THE OTHER ONE IS, UH, WE MIGHT NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT OUR NOVEMBER 8TH MEETING, AND I THINK MR. RARE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP US SEND OUT A POLL AND JUST CONSIDER HOW THAT MEETING WILL PROCEED BECAUSE IT IS ELECTION NIGHT.
ALTHOUGH WE'RE HEARING TODAY THAT I THINK WE
[04:25:01]
MIGHT BE ABLE TO MEET QUORUM.UH, SO YES, WE CAN SEND OUT A POLL AS WE TYPICALLY DO, BUT AHEAD OF TIME WOULD BE GOOD.
CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LADIES AND ANDROID.
SO IF YOU CHECK YOUR EMAIL, THERE IS A SURVEY, UM, BUT I APOLOGIZE FOR, UM, I'M GOING TO RESEND THAT SURVEY, UH, JUST TO SEE IF, UM, FOLKS ARE IMITABLE TO THAT BEING AN EARLY MEETING, UH, 8:00 PM OR JUST A REGULAR FULL MEETING.
UM, SO, AND, AND, AND WE STILL HAVE TIME TO SCHEDULE AN FIFTH IF WE NEED TO, UH, WHEN'S THE LATEST? WE CAN SCHEDULE THAT MEETING ON NOVEMBER 29TH IF WE NEED IT.
I, I SUPPOSE IF NEEDED, WE CAN GO TO NOVEMBER 29TH.
BUT IF NEEDED OR IF, I MEAN, HONESTLY, IN AN IDEAL WORLD, WE MIGHT WANNA SCHEDULE SOMETHING EARLIER THAN THAT, WHICH WOULD MEAN IT'S NOT A TUESDAY, SO IT'S NOT SCHEDULED IN PEOPLE'S AGENDA, WHICH MAKES IT MORE TRICKIER AND WORKING WITH STAFF AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, BUT IF NEEDED, WE CAN GO TO THAT.
NOVEMBER 20 IS YES, NOVEMBER DURING NINTH AND MEET IT.
TO DRAG THINGS OUT, UM, FOR THE FOURTH TIME LAST NIGHT AT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WE HAD A CASE BEFORE US WHERE THERE REALLY WAS NO HARDSHIP.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE OF OUR VERY COMPLICATED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, AN APPLICANT IS GOING TO HAVE TO TEAR DOWN, UH, A SHED THAT THEY USED TO REPLACE A SHED DUE TO A MISTAKE ON CITY STAFF'S PART COMPLICATED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MISTAKES HAPPEN.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF ANYBODY WOULD BE WILLING TO SPONSOR MAYBE EITHER A WORKING GROUP OR DISCUSSING A, A TOOL OR SOME KIND OF CODE PLATFORM TO GRANT OR, OR ALLOW, UH, FOR SOME TYPE OF CORRECTION WHEN THESE MISTAKES HAPPEN.
UH, BECAUSE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN'T DO IT.
WHAT WE'RE VERY LIMITED, STRICTLY LIMITED ON WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO.
CAN CAN WE PUT TOGETHER INSTEAD OF A WORKING GROUP FIRST, MAYBE JUST A FEW MEMBERS TO EXPLORE IT AND THEN, OR OR LIKE PUT IT ON LIKE GENDER JUST TO DISCUSS OR YEAH, CUZ I MEAN, I'M CURIOUS, BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW IF WE PUT IT IN THE CONFINES OF A WORKING GROUP.
SORRY, I MEANT TO SAY, UH, YEAH.
TO DISCUSS AND POSSIBLY CREATE A WORKING GROUP.
IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT'S SO I'LL, I MEAN, I'LL SECOND THAT.
I MEAN, I DEFINITELY, I WANNA HEAR ABOUT THIS AND I, KIM MOTION, I JUST, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO HEAR, UM, THESE, THESE CONCERNS OR JUST ADD IT TO THE AGENDA MAYBE.
AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, YOU KNOW, JUST, BUT, BUT THIS IS CORRECTIONS TO CITY'S MISTAKES.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO AVENUE FOR, FOR RESTITUTION, THEY JUST HAVE TO TEAR WHATEVER THE MISTAKE WAS DOWN.
LIKE THAT'S THEIR ONLY OPTION.
AND I'VE HEARD, I MEAN, A CITY'S MISTAKE, I DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN, I'VE, I'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE, BUT IF CITY MESSES UP, IT'S NOT A FREE VARIANCE.
YOU'RE STILL RE AND IT AND IT'S KIND OF MESSY.
AND, UM, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR IF, IF THERE'S NO, NO, BUT I MEAN, SERIOUSLY, GOD BLESS THE STAFF.
I KNOW THEY'VE GOT A LOT TO DEAL WITH AND, AND, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THIS GETS MISSED, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HUMAN, BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME TYPE OF WAY THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVE TO MAKE THE, THE RESIDENT HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.
AND, AND THERE ARE WAYS THAT COULD BE TWEAKED TO ALLOW THESE THINGS TO STAY VERSUS BEING TORN DOWN.
BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE A PROCESS FOR THAT, RIGHT.
THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M HOPING FOR.
AGAIN, DOESN'T COST THE PERSON WHO GOT AFFECTED.
SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS JUST ON FUTURE AGENDAS, JUST PUT A DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON, UH, CODE AMENDMENTS FOR REMEDIES FOR YEAH.
REY REMEDIES FOR CITY'S MISTAKES ON PROJECTS.
AND IF WE CAN HAVE RELEVANT STAFF TO YEAH.
ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS OR HELP US THINK THROUGH.
[BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]
RIGHT.LET'S GO AND DO UPDATES REAL QUICK AND THEN, WE'LL, IT SHOULD BE DONE.
UH, CODES AND NORMS. JOINT COMMITTEE, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO PREVIOUSLY MEET, UH, SINCE WE HAD OUR PREVIOUS MEETING.
AND WE WILL BE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED AT OUR, UH, 19TH MEETING.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
ONE MORE, ONE MORE THING TO NOTE ON COAST AND ORDINANCES IS THERE'S A DISCUSSION STILL TO BE HAD ABOUT, UH, POSSIBLY CHANGING THE DAY WE'RE MEETING.
UM, WE'RE, OH, YEAH, WE'RE TALKING THAT THROUGH WITH ZAP AND PC.
UH, ONE OF US IS GONNA HAVE TO MEET THE DAY AFTER OUR LONG MEETINGS, LIKE TONIGHT, UM, ON THOSE DAYS.
SO JUST FYI, THERE, MAYBE SCHEDULE CHANGES COMING UP.
UH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
UH, MR. AND WE'RE MEETING ON THURSDAY.
ANYTHING THERE? MR. SNYDER? I MISSED THE LAST
[04:30:01]
MEETING.UH, SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
UM, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING THIS MONTH, AND I'M SURE EVERYBODY BUDDY WILL BE GETTING THEIR NOTICE, BUT THE OCTOBER 5TH WAS CANCELED, BUT WE'RE GONNA HAVE ONE COMING UP.
SETH CENTRAL WATER FUND ADVISORY BOARD.
ANY ACTIVITY THERE? COMMISSIONER? SHE, OH, THAT'S, UH, OH, THAT'S, NO, THAT'S NOT THAT ONE.
HE, WE HAVE TWO FOLKS ON THIS ONE.
UM, ANY, UH, DESIGN, DESIGN GUIDELINE UPDATE, WORKING GROUP, ANY ACTIVITIES THERE OF US SHARE? YEAH, I SAW AN EMAIL TODAY REACHING OUT, UM, ABOUT SPECIFICS, UM, OF THE WORKING GROUP.
I THINK THERE'S STILL, IT'S STILL COMING TOGETHER.
WE'VE BEEN INUNDATED WITH THE, THE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
AND I GUESS WE HAVE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL, WE JUST ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE AND SITE PLAN.
UH, CAN THIS, CAN THAT WORK GROUP BE DISSOLVED NOW? WE'RE DONE.
RIGHT? UNTIL IT COMES BACK TO THE SPACE TOO.
UH, DO WE WANNA GO AND WE ROD DISSOLVED THIS GROUP? CAUSE IT'S GONNA BE AFTER THE NEW YEAR, RIGHT? LET'S DIS DISSOLVE IT.
SO WE'RE, WE DON'T, WE'RE DISPENSING OF THAT WORK GROUP.
DON'T NEED IT ANYMORE FOR NOW.
SO WE ARE AT 10 55 COMMISSION ON JUST ONE LAST IT BUSINESS.
IF WE CAN, UH, NOMINATE, UM, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AS THE SUBSTITUTE AS SECRETARY THIS EVENING TRIAL.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND WE'RE AT, UH, 10 56.
ADUR THIS, IF I DON'T HEAR ANY OPPOSITION.