* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:04] IT IS [Call to Order] NOVEMBER 1ST, 2022. THIS IS ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION. FIRST I'M GONNA CALL ROLL. UM, COMMISSIONER ACOA, I THINK HAD A WORK THING TONIGHT. UM, I'M BOB BOONE. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DINKLER. COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? HERE. HERE. COMMISSIONER KING. HERE. VICE CHAIR. CHILL. BOSS KIELBASA HERE. COMMISSIONER SMITH PRESENT. COMMISSIONER STERN PRESENT. AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON HERE. AND COMMISSIONER WOODY. I DON'T SEE YET. SO GO AHEAD AND GO OVER OUR, [Consent Agenda] UM, OUR CONSENT AGENDA FIRST IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. WERE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 11TH? NO. OKAY. I'LL GO AHEAD. AND, UM, ITEM NUMBER TWO WAS A PRELIMINARY PLAN, UM, C 8 20 22 0 2. 52 SH GOODNIGHT TOWN CENTER, PHASE ONE, SECTION ONE, DISTRICT TWO. AND IT'S, UM, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR DISAPPROVAL FOR REASONS PER EXHIBIT C. ITEM THREE IS A PRELIMINARY PLAN. CJ 20 19 0 1 45, DRY CREEK PRELIMINARY PLAN UP FOR APPROVAL. ITEM FOUR WILL HAS BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION. ITEM FIVE IS, SORRY, I'M NOT SEEING ON CONSENT. OH, YES, IT IS ON CONSENT AND IT'S FINAL PLATFORM APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN CJ 20 18 0 91 DOT THREE A TURNERS CROSSING SOUTH PHASE ONE. SO, CONSENT AGENDA IS ITEMS 1, 2, 3, AND FIVE. I'M MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ. SO A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER SMITH, THE SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER DANGLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. OKAY, THAT LOOKS UNANIMOUS. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR [4. Final Plat with variances: C8J-2021-0206.0A - Srivathanakul Subdivision; District 10] THEN, WHICH IS COMMISSION. UM, SORRY, MR. SAVA GIVING US A PRESENTATION. GOODING COMMISSIONERS, UH, SAVA THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR, UH, KT H A 20 21, 0 2, 0 6 0.001, OR ZERO. A APOLOGIZE. UH, THE KNUCKLE SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 1 0 1 LAGO DRIVE. UH, THE, UH, PROPERTY CONSISTS OF ONE ACRE POINT, 1.408 ACRES. UH, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLA THAT PROPERTY INTO ONE LOT DIVISION. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING VARIANCES TO, UH, UH, THE ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, SECTION OF CODE. UH, THE VARIANCES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED ARE FOR, UH, OR, UH, ALLOW DENSITY TO EXCEED ONE UNIT PER EACH TWO ACRES, UH, OUT OF, UH, LDC SECTION 25 8 4 53, AND LDC 35 4 53. AND THE SECOND VARIANCE WOULD BE TO, UH, SECTIONS LDC 25 8 4 52, AND LDC 35 4 5 2. UH, THIS, UH, VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW A LOT THAT LIES IN A CRITICAL WATER QUALITY, QUALITY ZONE TO INCLUDE LESS THAN TWO ACRES IN A WATER QUALITY TRANSITION ZONE. UH, THE, UH, VARIANCES HAVE GONE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, AND THE COMMISSION HAD, UH, APPROVED THE VARIANCES WITH RECOMMENDATIONS. UH, THE, THE, UH, CASE HAS IT BEEN REVIEWED BY STAFF AND IS, UH, ADDRESSED THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMENTS. UH, THE COMMENTS THAT ARE OUTSTANDING CAN BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY AS, UH, SHOWN IN EXHIBIT C. UM, AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. OKAY. HE JUST HAD A SHORT PRESENTATION. UM, I THINK WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR SPEAKERS THAT ARE FOR, OR I'LL LET YOU GO MR. AVERA, AND TELL US WHAT THE ORDER IS. THANK YOU, CHAIR IN. IN THE MEANTIME, UH, MR. ZALLA, IF YOU COULD, UM, PROBABLY, UH, MOVE YOUR MICROPHONE CLOSER TO YOU. CASE THERE'S A Q AND A, UH, TO FOLLOW. UM, OKAY. SO CHAIR, WE'LL BEGIN, UH, FROM HEARING FROM, UH, THE APPLICANT, UM, AS, UH, JANICE SERVE THANKFUL RIVA DANAL, UM, FOR SIX MINUTES. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JANICE SRE VU, AND I AM ONE OF THE CO TRUSTEES [00:05:01] OF THE, UM, REVOCABLE TREE BOTANICAL FAMILY TRUST THAT OWNS THE TWO TRACKS OF LAND. MY HUSBAND AND I ARE THE, UH, CO-TRUSTEES. UM, I AM HERE TO, UM, REQUEST THE VARIANCE AS, UH, STATED BY MR. CESAR, UH, ZALLA ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES FOR THE, UH, AS STATED EARLIER. SO IF WE CAN MAYBE MOVE ON. I'LL GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND ON THE UNIQUE, UH, PRO, UH, PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE HERE. WE OWN TWO TRACKS OF LAND. UH, YOU CAN, YOU CAN SEE IN THE MAP THERE, UH, THERE IS ONE ON 1 0 1 LARGO VERDE, WHICH IS, UH, THE LAKE, UH, SIDE, AND THEN THE ONE BEHIND IT. AND WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, OWNED THESE TWO TRACKS OF LAND SINCE 2008 AND 2011. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR THESE TWO TRACKS OF LAND, AND IT IS RIGHT NEXT TO AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION RIO FETA EDITION. NEXT, PLEASE. OUR INTENT IS TO CREATE A 1.4 ACRE LEGAL LOT THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS. WE HAVE, UH, LOOKED INTO THE ABILITY TO, UM, DO THE LEGAL LOT STATUS. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT'S WHY IN ORDER FOR US TO DO ANY PERMITS AND TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS OR, OR, UM, FIX, YOU KNOW, AGING INFRASTRUCTURE, WE WILL NEED TO GET THIS PLAT IN ORDER TO GET PERMITS, UH, FROM THE CITY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO, JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND, THESE TWO TRACKS OF LAND LIVE WITHIN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE NEAR THE LAKE. AND THEN IT, THERE IS, UH, YOU KNOW, THE UPLAND ZONE IN BETWEEN. UH, AND THEN ON THE OTHER END OF IT WILL BE THE WATER QUALITY TRANSITION ZONE. SO THIS LOT ACTUALLY SITS WITHIN ALL THREE ZONES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THERE ARE TWO SPECIFIC LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY TO THESE TWO TRACKS. THE FIRST ONE IS THE ONE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE DENSITY MAY NOT EXCEED ONE UNIT FOR EACH TWO ACRES WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF THREE ACRE, THREE QUARTERS ACRE. UH, WE ARE PROPOSING A 1.4 ACRE FOR ONE UNIT. SO THERE IS ONE UNIT ON THE TRACK ON THE 0.4 ACRE TRACK TODAY, WE DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO INCREASE THE LOT SIZE TO TWO ACRES, AND THERE'S NO WAY TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO LESS THAN ONE. AND, BUT WE HAVE MET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF THREE QUARTERS ACRE. THE SECOND, UH, CODE REQUIREMENT THAT WE NEED A VARIANCE FOR IS RELATES TO THE WATER QUALITY TRANSITION ZONE. SO IT SAYS THAT A LOT THAT LIES WITHIN A CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE MUST ALSO INCLUDE AT LEAST TWO ACRES IN A WATER QUALITY TRANSITION ZONE OR UPLAND ZONE. ONCE AGAIN, THE TOTAL PROPOSED LOT SIZE IS 1.4, AND WE HAVE NO AC NO ABILITY TO INCREASE A LOT SIZE TO TWO ACRES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE HAVE LOOKED INTO THE, UM, WHETHER WE COULD INCREASE THE ACREAGE TO MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS. UH, WE LOOK, I MEAN, THERE'S TWO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. UH, A AS LISTED THERE ON THE LEFT SIDE IS, UH, OWNED BY THE SMITH INVESTMENTS LIMITED. IT IS APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES OF RAW LAND. IT'S OWNED BY FAMILY TRUST, AND IT IS, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE CONVEYING ANY PORTION OF THAT WOULD ABSORB THIS LOT OF LEGAL TRACK. SO, UH, I DOUBT THEY WILL BE WILLING TO SELL ME, YOU KNOW, A 0.6 ACRES TO MAKE THIS TWO ACRE LOT, UH, REQUIREMENT. AND THEN THE, UH, TRACK BEHIND TRACK B IS OWNED BY CHRISTOPHER LAYTON. UH, IT IS ALSO UNPLATTED AND IT TOTAL 0.743 ACRES. IF WE WERE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THIS TRACK, WE WOULD SATISFY THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF ONE DWELLING UNIT OF TWO ACRES. HOWEVER, IT WOULD STILL NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE TWO ACRES IN A WATER QUALITY TRANSITION ZONE OR UPLAND ZONE. IN ADDITION, WE DID REACH OUT TO THE OWNER TO SEE IF THEY WERE OPEN TO SELLING AND WE WERE NOT, UH, SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING A RESPONSE. UH, THE OTHER, UM, YOU KNOW, OPTION WAS TO LOOK AT THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION, BUT THE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO REASON FOR THEM TO VACATE THEIR PLA LOTS IN ORDER TO RE SUBDIVIDE. SO IT WAS NOT, UH, SOMETHING THAT WAS FEASIBLE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IS A LITTLE CABIN, UH, IS EXISTING AND IT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED BACK IN THE EARLY, EARLY 1970S WITH AN ONSITE SEPTIC UNDERGROUND TANK. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE HAVE MADE SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXTERIOR, UH, OF, TO THE, UM, OUTSIDE, UH, FOCUS REALLY ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND USABILITY. SO WE'D HAVE ADDED TERRACING AND RETAINING WALLS TO ENSURE THE STABILITY OF THE SLOPE AND MINIMIZE THE RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE. WE HAVE ADDED NATIVE PLANTS FOR GROUND COVER TO MINIMIZE EROSION. WE HAVE PRESERVED THE HERITAGE AND PROTECTED TREES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, AND WE HAVE ALSO MITIGATED THE WETLANDS DURING THE TIMES THAT THESE IMPROVEMENTS. AND WE'VE OTA ADDED, UH, SOLAR PANELS FOR OUR WATER PUMP HOUSE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO IS TO MODERNIZE THIS SITE AND ALSO LEVERAGE CURRENT [00:10:01] MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS. WE WANNA RENOVATE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, EXPAND THE FOOTPRINT IN A SECOND FLOOR. THE PROPOSED EXPANSION WILL NOT INCREASE THE FOOTPRINT IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS GONNA BE WITHIN THE UPLAND ZONE, AND IT WILL STILL REMAIN ONE UNIT. WE WOULD LIKE TO REPLACE THE AGING ONSITE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND, AND INSTALL A NEW MODERN REPLACEMENT AND THE DESIGN OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN IMPROVED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN, O S S F WITH A DRAIN FEEL FURTHER AWAY FROM THE LAKE. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD ENCLOS GARAGE PARKING. SO THIS WILL MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR STONE STORM WATER OR RUNOFF OF ANY CONTAMINANTS RELATED TO, UH, THE CARS. AND THEN LAST, WE WOULD, UH, LOOK TO AT RAIN WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND RAIN BARRELS TO HELP US, YOU KNOW, UH, COLLECT THAT WATER FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE CONDITIONS BEING RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF AS PART OF THIS VARIANCE APPROVAL, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NATURAL VEGETATION WITHIN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. UH, IT WILL, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WILL PRESERVE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE HERITAGE TREES WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION. WE WILL DO PUT IN THE RAINWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM, UH, AND WE WILL PROPOSE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION TO MINIMIZE THE DES DISTURBANCE IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. UH, AND THEN WE WOULD UPGRADE THE SEPTIC SYSTEM AS WELL. AND THAT SEPTIC SYSTEM WILL BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE LAKE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO, IN SUMMARY, WE SEEK YOUR APPROVAL FOR THESE TWO VARIANCES IN ORDER FOR US TO GET A SUBDIVISION APPROVED SO THAT WE CAN GET THIS PLATTERED AND BE ABLE TO, UH, DEVELOP AND MAKE THE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS. UH, NOT GRANTING THESE VARIANCES WOULD PREVENT A REASONABLE ECONOMIC ECONOMIC USE OF THE, OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. ONE, I'LL HEAR FROM KAREN ONCE, UH, I THINK IT'S OKAY. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME'S KAREN WENCH. UM, I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT WE'VE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH STAFF TO COMPLY WITH, UM, THE CODES AND ADDRESS ALL THE TECHNICAL COMMENTS THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW PROCESS. HOWEVER, THERE'S NO ALTERNATIVE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE TWO ACRE MINIMUM FOR ONE DWELLING UNIT. UM, THERE'S JUST NO OPPORTUNITY IN THIS AREA TO ACQUIRE THE ADDITIONAL ACREAGE TO GET TO THAT TWO ACRE MINIMUM. UM, THERE WERE SOME OPPOSITION LETTERS PROVIDED, WHICH I, I READ, AND I GUESS THEY KIND OF IMPLIED OR ACCUSED THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNER OF MAKING A MOCKERY OF THE CODE. BUT, UM, WE REALLY HAVE WORKED VERY CLOSELY FOR, FOR MANY MONTHS WITH STAFF TO SATISFY ALL THE CODE REQUIREMENTS AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST PROCESS IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE CODE AND CONTEMPLATED WITH THE CODE. UM, AND, AND SO THIS IS, THIS REQUEST IS ACTUALLY WORKING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CODE. SO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU APPROVE THE, UM, VARIANCE REQUEST PRESENTED SO THAT, UM, SO THAT THE OWNERS CAN PLAT THE PROPERTY INTO A, A LEGAL ONE LOT, UH, SUBDIVISION TO ALLOW FOR THE, UM, UH, BUILDING PERMITS TO BE, TO BE PULLED OR, OR REVIEWED AND PULLED, UM, TO IMPROVE THE EXISTING, UM, STRUCTURE. WE DID ALL INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVES AND THERE JUST DID NOT SEEM TO BE ANY, UM, THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR, FOR THESE SECTIONS OF THE CODE TO BE SATISFIED WITHOUT THE VARIANCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALSO REGISTERED AS JONATHAN FLEMING WHO WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. SO WE, I HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION BEGINNING WITH MR. JEROME JOHNSON. MR. JEROME JOHNSON, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES, FOLLOWED BY LYDIA JOHNSON. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, UM, I'VE LIVED IN THE AREA FOR 49 YEARS. I HAVE GIVEN UP THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ANYBODY THAT PASSES ON LAGO VERDE, BUT I WISH THAT I HAD NOT DONE THAT. NOW, DEFINITELY, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT ANY ENHANCEMENTS THAT'S GONNA CREATE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA IS GONNA BE DETRIMENTAL TO ME AND POSSIBLY, UH, MR. UH, ALLEN GARTNER, WHO ALSO SUBMITTED SOME TYPE OF, UH, OBJECTION. I, UH, LIVE ON THE CUSP OF 1 0 1 AND 1 0 3. I, UH, [00:15:02] AM CONCERNED ABOUT ANY TYPE OF RUNOFFS THAT WILL BE CAUSED FROM EXTRA INSTRUCTION. I APOLOGIZE IF I MADE MOCKERY OUT OF ANY OF MY PROTESTS. I FELT THAT, UH, I WAS OFFERED THE RIGHT TO MAKE ANY SUGGESTION POSSIBLE. UH, ANY BUILDING EXCESS CHANGES INCREASE IS NOISE, TRAFFIC, AND WATER EROSION. I'VE BEEN VERY BESET FOR THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS WITH A CONSTRUCTION THAT'S GONE ON ADJACENT TO ME ON THE OTHER SIDE, WHICH HAS BLOCKED THE ROADS WITH HUGE TRUCKS. SOME DAYS IT TAKES ME 20 MINUTES TO GET OUTTA MY SUBDIVISION AREA CALLED REAL VISTA. ACCORDING TO THE ORIGINAL RESTRICTIONS, YOU ARE ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO ENHANCE THE EXISTING DWELLING, BUT TO MY UNDERSTANDING, NOW, YOU CAN GO WAY BEYOND THAT. THAT'S A QUESTION I'M ASKING. CAN ANYBODY ANSWER THAT? THE COMMISSION WILL FOLLOW UP WITH QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. SO I THINK I HAVE MADE IT FAIRLY CLEAR ON WHAT MY PROBLEM IS. UH, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE EXCESSIVE BUILDING ON THAT PARTICULAR LOT, I WOULD HOPE THAT THEY COULD EVENTUALLY EXTEND THEIR OUTLET TO, UH, PECAN DRIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM THAT I SEE. MR. GARTNER'S OBJECTION IS THAT HE WAS NOT REALLY CLEAR ON WHAT THE EXPANSIONS WERE GONNA BE. SO I WILL REVEAL TO HIM WHAT I'VE HEARD HERE TONIGHT. IF ANYBODY WANTS TO ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWERED THEM. I'M DELIGHTED TO BE HERE. AND I DIDN'T COME HERE WITH HORNS. I JUST CAME WITH TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT REALLY IS GOING TO HAPPEN. SO I'M NOT ANYBODY'S ENEMY IN THE AREA. OTHER PEOPLE I THINK, ARE DISCO CONCERNED BECAUSE THEY LIVE A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE END. THEY CAN GET OUT OF THEIR DOMICILES VERY QUICKLY, AND IT DOESN'T, UH, PROVIDE ANY AGITATION TO 'EM. BUT WHEN I BLOCKED IN FROM MY OTHER NEIGHBOR, IT'S VERY, UH, DISCONCERTING, I SHOULD SAY. MAKE IT SIMPLE. SO WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU AT THIS TIME, BUT I'M VERY GLAD THAT YOU CAME DOWN TO SHARE WITH US YOUR FEEDBACK, MR. JOHNSON. AND, UM, IF YOU WANT, YOU CAN SIT ON THE FRONT ROAD THERE. IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, WE'LL, WE'LL ASK HIM FOR YOU. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION ON IT, AND, UH, I'LL LOOK FORWARD TO ANY TYPE OF INFORMATION THAT COMES UP IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I'LL HEAR FROM MISS LYDIA JOHNSON. MS. JOHNSON, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. IS IT HERE OR HERE? YEAH, RIGHT THERE. THANK YOU. I AM LYDIA JOHNSON. I AM THE WIFE OF JEROME JOHNSON. WE'VE BEEN MARRIED ALMOST 50 YEARS. WE'VE OWNED THAT PROPERTY SINCE 1974. THOSE WERE MUCH BETTER DAYS THAN THEY ARE TODAY. AFTER LISTENING TO MY NEIGHBORS, UH, PLEA, IT WOULD SEEM RATHER SELFISH OF ME TO SAY TO YOU, I WISHED YOU WOULD NOT GRANT THIS VARIANCE. BUT I HAVE VERY STRONG FEELINGS AND I HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY [00:20:01] THINGS I COULD SAY TO YOU TODAY. AND I DID TRY TO TELL MR. ZALLA EARLIER, BUT I RESTRICTED MY TIME WITH HIM TO ABOUT 20 MINUTES, WHICH REALLY DID NOT EVEN COVER ALL OF THE ISSUES. UM, NUMBER ONE, WE'VE RECEIVED VERY SHORT NOTICE. I'M NOT GONNA MAKE ANY APOLOGIES FOR BEING A SENIOR CITIZEN IN THAT I'M SLOWER. AND IT'S MUCH HARDER FOR US TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS LIKE THIS DOWNTOWN, ESPECIALLY AS ALL THE HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU PEOPLE MUST PREFER THESE DATES. BUT I DON'T, AND I WISHED I COULD SAY TO MY NEIGHBOR AND REALLY BE A REALLY NICE, GOOD, UM, WONDERFUL PERSON TO MY NEIGHBOR. I DON'T LIKE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT HAS COME THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF THEM, AND I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO SAY IT BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO DISPARAGE MY NEIGHBOR. BUT THERE'S JUST WAY TOO MANY VISITORS THERE. IT'S GONE ON A LONG TIME. IT HAS EMOTIONALLY UPSET ME TO THE POINT THAT WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR PARTIES OR THEIR GET TOGETHERS, I MUST STAY IN BED, UH, WITH PILLOWS ON TOP OF MY HEAD AND CRY. IT'S JUST TOO MANY. AND THE NOISE IS, UH, NOBODY WOULD UNDERSTAND. WOULD YOU UNDERSTAND? WOULD, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL LIKE LIVING NEXT DOOR TO A BAR AND HAVING TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE LAUGHING AND GIGGLING AND HOLLERING AND WHATEVER ON A SATURDAY OR SUNDAY WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO RELAX? OR MAYBE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE RETIRED AND WE TRIED TO GET AWAY FROM ALL THAT, BUT, UM, I CERTAINLY DO THINK THEY HAVE REALLY IMPROVED THAT PROPERTY TO LOOK AS NICE AS IT DOES AND HOW GOD HAS BLESSED THEM WITH THE FINANCIAL FUNDS TO DO SUCH A THING. WE HAVE NOT BEEN BLESSED IN THAT WAY, AND I'M SURE THAT THAT TAINTS OUR IMAGE TO OUR NEIGHBORS. I'M ALSO DISABLED FROM A CRIPPLING CAR ACCIDENT, WHICH I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT BECAUSE IT OCCURRED IN A NO FAULT STATE. BUT THERE ARE MANY OBJECTIONS HERE. I CANNOT READ THEM IN THREE MINUTES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY TO YOU. I DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS IS FAIR. UH, MY NEIGHBOR WAS MUCH MORE, UH, PREPARED AND CONCISE IN WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY BECAUSE SHE'S JUST ASKING FOR, UH, TO BUILD SOMETHING. OUR OBJECTIONS GO DEEPER THAN THAT. BUT THE MAIN THING IS SHE'S ONLY GOT 50 FEET. THE PREVIOUS OWNER I KNEW FOR 30 YEARS, SHE TRIED, UH, MR. SCHMITT MANY, MANY TIMES TO GET HIM TO SELL HER AN ADDITIONAL 50 FEET. HE WOULDN'T DO IT. MR. SCHMITT IS A VERY FINE MAN. HE MAY BE DEAD NOW. THOSE ARE HIS, HIS, UH, RELATIVES. AND, UH, THEY WOULD NOT SELL THE 50 FEET. THEY WANTED THE PROPERTY FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT MINISTRY OF BOTANICAL FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL COMMISSIONERS. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE POINTS THAT WERE RAISED BY MR. AND MRS. JOHNSON. I, UH, APPRECIATE THE RIGHT OF WAY COMMENT. UH, WE ACTUALLY ACTUALLY DID SOME RESEARCH AROUND THE RIGHT OF WAY AND WENT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PLAT, WHICH WAS IN 1956 THAT GRANTED THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THAT LARGO VERDE ROAD. SO IT IS, UM, NOT, IT IS A PUBLIC EASEMENT, SO IT'S NOT PART OF A, YOU KNOW, MR. AND MRS. JOHNSON'S PROPERTY PER SE. AND THE SECOND POINT THAT, UM, I THINK MR. JOHNSON SUGGESTED WAS TO PERHAPS ACCESS THE PROPERTY THROUGH PECAN DRIVE. UNFORTUNATELY, I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO PECAN DRIVE UNLESS I WAS ABLE TO BUY THE LOT BEHIND WHICH MR. LAYTON IS NOT WILLING TO SELL. UH, SO I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO PECAN DRIVE, UM, AS IT RELATES TO THE SHORT NOTICE OF HEARING. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WITHIN MY CONTROL. BUT I'M, AS I ASSUME THIS WAS DONE WITHIN THE, THE, UH, CITY'S, UH, PROCESS AND AS IT RELATES TO, YOU KNOW, TRAFFIC AND NOISE, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN ACTUALITY, THE OVERALL SUBDIVISION IS CHANGING. I MEAN, THERE ARE NEW HOUSES BEING BUILT, UH, AND HOUSES BEING RENOVATED ALONG THAT, THAT ROAD. UM, AND IT IS NOT, I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT IS LOOKING TO DO IMPROVEMENTS. [00:25:01] IN FACT, I'VE OWNED THIS LOTS, THESE TRACKS SINCE 2008. I'VE, AND I'VE KEPT IT PRETTY MUCH, AS YOU SAW IN THE PICTURE. IT'S A LITTLE CABIN. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE, WE USE IT, UH, WITHIN THOSE CONFINES AS OPPOSED TO SOME OF THE NEWER HOUSES THAT ARE BEING BUILT THAT MRS. JOHNSON REFERRED TO, THAT'S CAUSING SOME OF THE, THE ISSUES. BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK, UM, WE ARE JUST REQUESTING FOR THIS, THESE TWO TRACKS TO BE PLOTTED INTO A SUBDIVISION SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS, THE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS TO MAINTAIN AND TO, UH, HAVE, YOU KNOW, A REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT WE OWN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR. THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO, MOVE BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DANGLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. LET'S START THE DISCUSSION. ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? THIS IS A HARD ONE. UM, I DO KNOW THAT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS SUBJECT TO BILL 31 67, AND THAT IT DOES HAVE A SHOT CLOCK ASSOCIATED WITH IT. SO WE DO HAVE TO APPROVE THE PLAT, BUT WE CAN POSTPONE THE VARIANCE, UM, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. YES. COMMISSIONER KING. SO, SO WE'RE, WE'RE DOING A SUBDIVISION AND THE VARIANCE IS TOGETHER TONIGHT, OR WE, AS YOU SAID CHAIR, WE COULD POSTPONE THE VARIANCE COMPONENT TILL A FUTURE DAY. YES. UM, OKAY. SO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE, FROM A SUBDIVISION PERSPECTIVE, AM I LOOKING ON THE MAP HERE? IT'S, IT'S, IT LOOKS LIKE I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT STAFF, FROM STAFF ABOUT THE, UH, EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THIS AREA IS, I'M, I'M, I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF LOOKS AT THAT AND WOULD NOT APPROVE IT IF THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. BUT CAN YOU, CAN YOU JUST GIMME A LITTLE INSIGHT INTO EMERGENCY ACCESS FIRE VEHICLES? WHEN I LOOKED ON GOOGLE MAPS AND, AND DRILLED DOWN THAT, THAT ROAD THAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT THERE, UH, IT LOOKS VERY NARROW. UH, THE ROAD BEING, UH, LET ME GIVE YOU THE NAME OF IT HERE. AND, UH, LAGO VERDE ROAD. IT LOOKS VERY NARROW. SO CAN STAFF KIND OF JUST, UH, JUST KIND OF LET ME KNOW ABOUT, LET US KNOW ABOUT, UH, EMERGENCY ACCESS AND HOW THAT WAS LOOKED AT ON THIS SUBDIVISION? FIRST OF ALL, I WAS THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. THIS IS, UH, THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED LA ALONG THE, ALONG THE LAKE, AND IT'S ALSO IN THE E T J. SO IT HAD DUAL REVIEW. IT HAD THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UH, REVIEWERS LOOK AT IT. AND ALSO TRAVIS COUNTY THAT, UH, FIRE REQUIREMENTS WERE ACTUALLY LOOKED OUT BY TRAVIS COUNTY. AND THE FIRE MARSHAL DID REVIEW THE PLAT AND THEY WENT AHEAD AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE PLA THAT THEY COULD PROVIDE SERVICES TO IT. OKAY. SO FIRE FIRE HAS LOOKED AT THIS, THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT, TRAVIS COUNTY, CATA COUNTY MARSHALL FIRE MARSHALL, YES. OKAY. OKAY. AND, UM, THE, UM, LET'S SEE, UH, THE, I GUESS IN TERMS OF, UH, THE FIRE, IS THIS IN LIKE IN A FIRE WISE ZONE IN THE CITY? UNFORTUNATELY, I WOULD NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU. MAYBE THE, THE APPLICANT OR THE OWNER MIGHT HAVE THAT INFORMATION. OKAY. BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, FIRE IS A BIG CONCERN HERE, ESPECIALLY GOING INTO DROUGHT. AND WE'RE IN A DROUGHT HERE AND THERE'S LOTS OF TREES AROUND THERE IN STAFF. TALK ABOUT THE FIRE. IS IT IN A FIRE, FIRE WISE AREA? I THINK MR. ZIVA SAID THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE. OH, I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE SOME OTHER STAFF MIGHT BE ANSWERING. THANK YOU. WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT'S A, I THINK AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT MAYBE IN OUR FUTURE SUBDIVISION CASES, WE COULD GET THAT INFORMATION. SO, AND CUZ I'M, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO, WHEN THEY BUILD, REDEVELOP THIS, THIS, THIS, UH, THIS SITE HERE, THEY'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, DO IT IN A WAY THAT HELPS TO PREVENT FIRES AND HELPS TO, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, UH, REDUCE THE CHANCE OF FIRES TO THEIR STRUCTURES THERE. AND YEAH. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOME INFORMATION THAT MAYBE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO, TO PROVIDE AS FAR AS WHAT THEIR POSSIBLE, UH, DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE GONNA PROPOSE ON THAT. UM, OKAY. OKAY. ONCE, ONCE IT GETS SUBDIVIDED. OKAY. THE, THE AKIN IS HERE AND SHE IS, LOOKS LIKE SHE MAY BE ABLE TO RESPOND. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS WOULD JUST BE ANSWERING THE QUESTION BY FIRE WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE ON FIREWISE. RIGHT. OKAY. UH, IT HAS NOT COME UP IN ANY OF THE REVIEW FROM, UM, TRAVIS COUNTY OR CITY OF AUSTIN. BUT IF WE WERE ABLE TO PLAT THE LOT AND BUILD A, A BUILDING PERMIT WOULD, I [00:30:01] GUESS COME UP THROUGH THAT REVIEW PROCESS. BUT, UM, INCLUDED IN OUR TRAVIS OR, YEAH, TRAVIS COUNTY, UM, PACKET. WE WENT TO COMMISSIONER'S COURT THIS MORNING AND THERE WAS AN APPROVAL LETTER, UM, FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL. AND THEN IF, UM, THEY'RE ABLE TO PLAT AND CREATE THIS LOT AND PULL PERMITS, THERE WILL ALSO BE A WATER TANK, THERE'S A PUMP. UM, AND THEN THERE WOULD BE A WATER TANK THAT WOULD HAVE A STORAGE CAPACITY THAT COULD BE USED IN CASE OF A FIRE AS WELL. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER SMITH. YEAH, THIS IS AN UNUSUAL CASE. IF, IF THERE WEREN'T A HOUSE ON THERE ALREADY, I'D LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY. BUT THE FACT THAT THERE'S A HOUSE THERE ALREADY AND PEOPLE ARE OCCUPYING THE HOUSE AND USING THE HOUSE, THAT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. UM, IS THERE AN ABILITY TO STAFF LOOK AT THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO TAKE ACCESS TO UNDER HILL ROAD AS OPPOSED TO TAKING ACCESS TO LIGO VERDE DRIVE? UH, THEIR PROPERTY DOES A BUT UNDER HILL ROAD, WHICH BOTH GOES BACK TO THE SAME PECAN DRIVE. UM, BUT IT WOULD BE A LONGER DRIVEWAY, BUT IT WOULD GET THEM TO OFF OF A, OFF TAKING ACCESS TO, TO LAGO VERDE. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GATED. YEAH, UN UNDER HILL ROAD IS, IS NOT CONSTRUCTED. IT'S A PAPER STREET. IT'S ONLY, IT'S ONLY BEEN PLATTED, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN, UH, AS A ROAD NEVERMIND THEN . OH, I COULDN'T, UM, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S NOT, YEAH, IF THERE WEREN'T THE HOUSE THERE ALREADY, IT WOULD, I WOULD LOOK AT THIS DIFFERENTLY. BUT THERE'S, THERE IS A HOUSE THERE ALREADY. WE HAVE TO APPROVE THE, THE, THE PLAT BECAUSE IT IS MEETS ALL CODES AND ORDINANCES. THE VARIANCES ARE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN MY MIND. UM, AND AGAIN, IF THERE WASN'T THE HOUSE THERE, I WOULD LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY, BUT HAVING A HOUSE THERE, UM, IT, IT MAKES SENSE TO ENABLE THEM TO DO THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT NEED TO BE DONE TO THAT HOUSE THAT'S EXISTING. THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M COMING FROM. OKAY. I'M SORRY. THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS CLOSED, SO WE CAN'T TAKE FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT UNLESS WE HAVE QUESTIONS AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. OKAY. UM, COMMISSIONERS KOBASA, BUT GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER KOBASA. JUST TO, WELL, JUST TO ANSWER, I MEAN, JUST TO BRING UP THE FIREWISE AGAIN. THAT WAS A GOOD QUESTION. COMMISSIONER KING AND WE HAD A CASE JUST TO A MONTH AGO WHERE THEY OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT IT WAS, THEY DIDN'T LOOK UP WHETHER IT WAS IN FIREWISE. AND I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO LOOK IT UP. IT DOES, THE CITY DOESN'T MAKE IT EASY, BUT IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT'S IN A FIREWISE AREA. BUT I'D HAVE TO, UM, I'D PROBABLY END UP DROPPING THIS MEETING FOR THAT. BUT I AM CONCERNED. SO IT IS GOING TO BE, I MEAN THE HOUSE IS ALLOWED WHETHER OR NOT, SO I DO SUPPORT THE SUBDIVISION, BUT THE VARIANCE IS TO INCREASE IT WHEN IT'S ALREADY A VERY FUNNY, ODD PIECE IN A VERY SUSCEPTIBLE AREA WITH EROSION ISSUES. CUZ IT'S, UM, AND GOING THROUGH THOSE THREE SEPARATE ZONES, I THINK IT'S REALLY PROBLEMATIC AND I THINK THERE'S RULES THERE FOR A REASON. AND THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. I THINK WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS THAT THERE'S A, AS COMMISSIONER SMITH HAS MENTIONED, THERE'S A HOUSE THAT ARE READY. UM, SO THEY'RE ALREADY ACCESSING IT, THEY'RE ALREADY USING IT. THEY'RE ASKING TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH IN ONE CASE WOULD IMPROVE. UM, IT SOUNDED LIKE THE WATER PUMP, I HAVE TO LOOK BACK AT WHAT THEY'RE LANDING ON. THEY'RE PROPOSING A WATER SYSTEM WHICH WOULD BE ABLE TO BE USED FOR FIRE PROTECTION. SO THEY'RE INCREASING THE FIRE PROTECTION, THEY'RE REDUCING THE EROSION, THEY'RE IMPROVING A LOT OF THINGS WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS THEY'RE PLANNING ON MAKING. SO WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS IMPROVE WHAT'S BEEN OUT THERE FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS. UM, BUT THEY CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE THEY'RE IN A CERTAIN ZONE. UM, AND SO WE'RE PRECLUDING THEM FROM DOING IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD MAKE A LOT OF THE SITUATIONS BETTER. I THINK THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION LOOKED AT IT THAT WAY AND THEY APPROVED IT. THANKS. OH, CAN I ASK A QUESTION, MR. ZAVALA, COULD THEY MAKE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS? JUST HAVING IT BE A LEGAL SUBDIVISION? I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING, BUT JUST IMPROVING THE WATER QUALITY AND THINGS LIKE THAT STAFF IS SHAKING THEIR HEAD. NO, YOU CAN'T SEE THAT. DON'T THINK, BUT I CAN SEE IT. OKAY. SO THEY NEED, SO THEY NEED, SO MAKE WHAT THEN, WHAT DOES BEING A SUBDIVISION ACTUALLY ENTITLE THEM TO DO? WELL, THEY, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. YES. WELL, THEY, FIRST OF ALL, THEY, THEY FIRST SPEAK THE VARIANCES TO, TO BE APPROVED BEFORE THEY COULD ACTUALLY PLAT, SINCE THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE DEVIATIONS FROM CODE, THE VARIANCES HAVE TO BE APPROVED FIRST IN ORDER FOR THEM TO, TO HAVE, UH, THE ABILITY TO ACTUALLY FLAT THAT LOT. ONCE, ONCE THEY PLOT, THEN THEY COULD GO AHEAD AND COMPLETE THE, THE FOLLOWING OF PHASES, WHICH WOULD BE THE RESIDENTIAL PERMITTING WITH, WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND ALSO TRAVIS COUNTY. OKAY. SO I SEEM TO [00:35:01] HAVE, I'VE HAD IT BACKWARDS THEN. SO, AND I DON'T KNOW, ARE YOU GONNA SAY SOMETHING? ? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONER STEVE HOPKINS WITH, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. I SUPERVISE THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW TEAM. UM, SO THE REASON WE'RE HERE IS THAT, UM, THE CITY CANNOT ISSUE PERMITS TO THE PROPERTY AS IT STANDS. THEY TRIED TO GET WHAT WE CALL A LAND STATUS DETERMINATION. UM, IT'S AN EXCEPTION TO PLATING. UM, WE COULDN'T GRANT THAT. SO THE ONLY WAY IS TO PLAT, WE CAN'T PLAT BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A VARIANCE. SO THAT IS WHY WE'RE HERE. UM, IF YOU DO NOT GRANT, YOU CANNOT APPROVE THE PLAT AND DENY THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THE WHOLE THING WILL, WILL DIE. SO ONE RELIES ON THE OTHER. UM, AND WELL, I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THAT'S HELPFUL. I HAVE A, A QUESTION OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID. UM, IF WE APPROVE THE PLATINUM, NOT THE VARIANCES, THEY SIMPLY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE WOULD BE A STRUCTURE, BUT THEY COULDN'T HAVE A, YOU CAN STILL HAVE THE HOUSE THERE, THE EXISTING ONE, BUT YOU COULDN'T DO ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO IT. IF YEAH, IF YOU DENY THE VARIANCE, THEN THEY GET WHAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW. RIGHT, EXACTLY. AND THEY HAVE PLATTED LOT, WHICH DOESN'T MEAN A WHOLE LOT. THEY, YEAH, THEY DON'T HAVE APPLIED LOT. UM, THEY HAVE A PIECE OF GROUND WITH A HOUSE ON IT AND WE CANNOT ISSUE PERMITS TO IT. BUT IF, COULD YOU, CAN YOU APPROVE THE PLAT AND NOT APPROVE THE VARIANCES? I'M ASKING THE QUESTION. IN, IN THEORY, WHAT YOU CAN DO IS APPROVE THE PLAT, UM, SUBJECT TO THE VARIANCE, UM, YOU KNOW, CON UH, CONDITION. THE PLAT ON THE VARIANCE. I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT BECAUSE, UM, I'M STILL CONCERNED THAT WE CAN'T QUITE DO THAT. UM, BUT WE'RE, ANDREW IS TRYING TO ASK THAT OF LEGAL RIGHT NOW. UM, SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT GOING THAT DIRECTION. UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MIKE MCDOUGAL, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. UH, SO FUNDAMENTALLY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CANNOT APPROVE THE PLAT BECAUSE IT'S IN THE WATER SUPPLY RURAL WATERSHED. IN THAT WATERSHED, IT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE TWO ACRES FOR EVERY ONE UNIT PROPOSED. SO IF YOU HAVE SIX ACRES, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THREE UNITS. IF SOMEBODY WANTED FOUR ACRES AND SIX UNITS, I SAY NO, YOU CAN ONLY HAVE THREE. THEY HAVE LESS THAN TWO ACRES. THE ONLY FEASIBLE NUMBER LESS THAN ONE IS ZERO. AND THEY CAN'T ACTUALLY, THAT'S NOT EVEN FEASIBLE. THEY CAN'T HAVE A ZERO UNIT SUBDIVISION. SO THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S THE, UH, THE, THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCES IN A NUTSHELL THAT THEY, THEY CANNOT REDUCE THE DENSITY TO COMPLY WITH THE ONE UNIT PER TWO ACRE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT IS 1.4 ACRES, PLUS OR MINUS. SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE REST OF THE LOTS IN THIS SUBDIVISION ARE ALSO LESS THAN TWO ACRES. THAT'S CORRECT. SO THEY WERE PLOTTED BEFORE THE, THE SUBDIVISION CRITERIA. SO THEY'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY THAN EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE SUBDIVISION IS DOING. THEY'RE DOING IT SMALLER. I, I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT. I NARROWER, I WON'T SAY SMALLER CUZ I THINK SIZE WISE OR A LOT IS PROBABLY BIGGER THAN THE OTHER ONES. BUT IT'S NARROWER. YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. I, I, I DON'T KNOW. THOSE LOTS ARE PLATTED. THEY DO LOOK LIKE THEY'RE PLATTED THAT THE CONFIGURATION SUGGESTS THAT THEY WERE PLATTED. RIGHT. THEY WERE PROBABLY PLOTTED EITHER BEFORE THE CITY HAD JURISDICTION. UH, A PORTION OF THAT, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS FULL PURPOSE. A PORTIONS ETJ. UH, SOME OF THE, OF THE OLDER SUBDIVISION COULD HAVE BEEN PLOTTED BEFORE THE CITY HAD JURISDICTION OR BEFORE THE CITY HAD THE ONE UNIT PER TWO ACRE REQUIREMENT THAT I BELIEVE CAME ABOUT IN THE EARLY 1980S. SO IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THESE WERE, COULD HAVE BEEN PLANTED IN THE SEVENTIES AND THERE WAS NO SUCH DENSITY REQUIREMENT UNDER CURRENT CODE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THOSE LOTS, UH, COULD BE PLANTED BECAUSE THEY'RE, THE DENSITY IS TOO GREAT. IT'S MUCH GREATER THAN ONE UNIT FOR TWO ACRES. THEY'RE DESCRIBED ON TCA AS A LOT THREE BLOCK ONE RIO VISTA EDITION. OKAY. SO IT TELLS ME THEY'RE PLATTED. YES, IT CERTAINLY SOUNDS LIKE THEY ARE. I'D PREFER TO SEE ON THAT. MM-HMM. , BUT YES, I THINK THEY ARE. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANKS. I SAW, YES. COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, HOW LARGE IN THAT ONE, IF THEY GET THIS VARIANCE AND SUBDIVISION, HOW LARGE CAN THAT ONE UNIT BE? THERE'S NOT A SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL LIMIT BECAUSE IT IS A DENSITY REQUIREMENT. ONE UNIT PER TWO ACRES. UM, THERE COULD BE A ZONING LIMIT, UH, PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS FULL PURPOSE. A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS ETJ. THERE WOULD NOT BE A ZONING LIMIT IN THE ETJ. HOWEVER, SOME OF THE CONDITIONS, AND I I I CAN PULL THOSE UP AND GO AND IN JUST A MOMENT. BUT SOME OF THE CONDITIONS DO LIMIT HOW LARGE THE HOUSE WOULD BE AS A CONDITION OF, UH, PLA AND THE PROPERTY. LET ME PULL UP THAT ON MY COMPUTER. I'LL BE RIGHT BACK. THANK YOU. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE STAFF CONDITIONS FROM EXHIBIT D? NO, THERE'S, IS THERE SETBACKS, ZONING LIMITATIONS, SO FORTH ON THE LOT, BUT THAT'LL COME UP AS ZONING, NOT AS PART OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. AND IS THE COTTAGE IN THE ETJ OR THE OTHER POINT? NO. SO, UH, MIKE MCDOUGAL, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. SO, UH, SOME OF THE VARIOUS CONDITIONS THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT THE APPLICANT WAS AGREEABLE TO, AND ALSO THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION [00:40:01] ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION APPROVED WAS THAT, UM, THEY WOULD PRESERVE 100% OF THE HERITAGE TREES WITHIN THEIR, WITHIN THEIR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. IN THE ETJ, THERE IS NOT A, UH, UH, TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT, BUT TO SPEAK TO THE, UH, TO THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE. SO ONE CONDITION WAS THAT, UH, LET'S SEE. UH, THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE ASSOCIATED WITH LAKE AUSTIN. SPECIFICALLY, THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOUSE WILL BE LOCATED TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE EXISTING HOUSE TO MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. SO THE CONDITION DID NOT SPEAK TO THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE OR THE AREA OF IMPERVIOUS COVER. IT DID SPEAK TO KEEPING ANY PROPOSED, UH, NEW CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE OF THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE. IT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE, I WOULD SAY THE STRUCTURE IS IN THE LIMITED PURPOSE ANNEX AREA. IS THAT CORRECT? SO IT'S ON THE LAKE AND THEY STRIP ANNEX ALONG THE LAKE. SO I'M ASSUMING IT'S IN THE LA YES, YES. THE EXISTING, UH, STRUCTURE IS ON THE ALI ZONE PORTION. OKAY. SO IT'S IN THE, IN THE LIMITED AREA THAT HAVE THE MOST CONTROL. ? YES. UM, COMMISSIONER DINGLER HAS A QUESTION. UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT REAL QUICK ONE, IF YOU COULD COME TO THE MIC, PLEASE. NO PROBLEM. I DIDN'T MEAN TO THROW YOU, YOU'RE ADDING AN ADDITION. WHAT'S THE CURRENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE AND WHAT WILL IT BE AFTER THE ADDITION? THE CURRENT SQUARE FOOTAGE IS ROUGHLY AROUND 700 OR 800 SQUARE FEET. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY. UH, AND WE HAVEN'T FINALIZED THE DESIGN YET. I THINK A LOT OF IT WILL DEPEND ON THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, LIMITS AS WELL. AND DEPENDING ON WHAT KIND OF FOUNDATION WE CAN BUILD. SO WE'RE, WE'RE STILL LOOKING INTO THE, THE DESIGN OF THE, THE FINAL HOUSE. WE HAVE NOT, UM, DO YOU HAVE A ROUGH IDEA OF WHAT IT PROBABLY AROUND TWO TO 3000. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I NEEDED. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KING. SO THIS QUESTION IS FOR STAFF. SO AM AM I, AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY THAT, THAT WE ARE IN A SITUATION HERE WHERE WE HAVE A SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES AND WE HAVE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES? WE, WE, WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO APPROVE THE VARI. AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT, THAT IF WE DON'T APPROVE THE VARIANCES, THEY CANNOT GET THE SUBDIVISION AND THEY, AND, AND, AND THEREFORE PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT. IS, IS THAT A SITUATION? THAT'S A QUESTION FOR STAFF. HE'S, HE'S, HE'S STANDING THERE. WAIT, YEAH, HE'S, HE'S THINKING ABOUT IT. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. UH, STEVE HOPKINS. UH, IF YOU WANT TO APPROVE THE PLAT, YOU MUST APPROVE THE VARIANCE. YOU CAN'T APPROVE THE PLAT AND DENY THE VARIANCE. BUT AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT WE CAN'T DENY THE VARI THE PLAT UNLESS WE CAN PULL THE POINT TO A SPECIFIC CODE THAT IT DOESN'T MEET? AND IF WE CAN'T DO THAT, WE CAN'T DENY THE PLAT, WE CAN'T DENY IT. IN THIS SITUATION. THERE'S A VARIANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLA. SO IF YOU DENY THE VARIANCE, YOU ARE ALSO DENYING THE PLAT. WE, WE, AND SO WE, WE COULD DO THAT. WE, WE COULD JUST DENY THE VARIANCE AND THEREFORE THE PLAT WOULD BE DENIED. I IS BETTER TO TAKE, ALSO TAKE ACTION ON THE PLAT. UM, RIGHT. SO DENY BOTH OF THEM. WE, AND THAT, THAT WOULD BE, SO I'M MR. HOPKINS, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. I DON'T WANT TO GET THE CITY OR THE COMMISSION IN TROUBLE HERE IN ANY WAY. SO EITHER WE APPROVE EVERYTHING OR WE DENY EVERYTHING. THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO DO IT. YES. OKAY. AND IF WE DENY EVERYTHING, ARE WE IN TROUBLE FOR SOME REASON FROM SOME LAW THAT WE DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, COMPLY WITH? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION, UM, JUST TO GET THE BALL ROLLING, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION WITH THE CONDITIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND AS LISTED IN THE REPORT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STERN. UM, ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER KING? UH, I WAS, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, SMITH. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM, IS THAT THE, IS THAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION EFFECTIVELY? YES. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ALSO INCLUDES THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION CONDITIONS. OKAY. SO THOSE ARE, OKAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING IT. OKAY. SO VERY, VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. YEAH. AND AGAIN, IF THERE WASN'T AN EXISTING HOUSE, I WOULD LOOK AT THIS VERY DIFFERENTLY, BUT THERE'S AN EXISTING HOUSE WITH PEOPLE OCCUPYING AND LIVING IN IT, AND IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE NOT TO APPROVE IT WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THERE. THAT'S A, IT'S A VERY TOUGH, IT'S A VERY UNUSUAL PROJECT, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I KNOW TO GO FORWARD IS TO APPROVE WHAT THEY'VE GOT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN BUILT AND IT KIND OF MATCHES WHAT'S IN THE REST OF THE SUBDIVISION. YEAH, I THINK WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD MAKE THEM SAFER WITH THE NEWER, UM, WATER SYSTEM. AND [00:45:01] SO THEY'RE ALREADY THERE. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS. SO THAT IS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. OH, LOOKS UNANIMOUS. ALL RIGHT. THANKS EVERYONE. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR COMING DOWN. UM, WE'LL MOVE [6. Discussion and possible action to approve the 2023 Zoning and Platting Commission meeting calendar.] ON TO ITEM NUMBER SIX, WHICH IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE THE 2023 ZONING AND PLATING COMMISSION MEETING CALENDAR. I'M NOT SURE IF EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS. UM, IT WAS AN ATTACHMENT IN ONE OF ANDREW'S EMAILS. UM, HE DID HIGHLIGHT JULY 4TH FOR US. SO ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WAS TO MOVE THAT TO THE FOLLOWING WEEK AFTER JULY 4TH AND HAVE A FIVE O'CLOCK MEETING WITH A CONSENT ONLY AGENDA. UM, SO THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE CALENDAR AND MOVING THE JULY 4TH MEETING TO THE NEXT WEEK, AND THEN HAVING A FIVE O'CLOCK MEETING WITH A CONSENT AGENDA IF THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. YES. UM, WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING WOULD BE YOU HAVE TO FOR PLANNING COMMISSION. SO YES, PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD MEET AT SIX, WE'D MEET AT FIVE WITH A, WITH A CONDITION THAT WOULD ONLY BE CONSENTED. AGENDA CONSENT AGENDAS. OKAY. YES, THAT MAKES SENSE. YES. I QUESTION COMMISSIONER KING? OH, YOU'RE ON MUTE. THANK YOU. YES, I, I WAS GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO, I AM GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE, THE CALENDAR WITH THAT CHANGE FOR JULY THE FOURTH AS YOU DESCRIBED, CHAIR. OKAY, GREAT. SO IT'D BE JULY 11TH OF JULY 11TH INSTEAD OF JULY 4TH. CHAIR COMMISSION LAY LIAISON, VERA. YES. UH, IF WE ALSO WANT TO INCLUDE, UH, MEETING LOCATION OF CITY HALL AND TIME 6:00 PM EXCEPT FOR THE JULY, UH, DATE. THAT IS AT 5:00 PM OKAY. SO YES, WE WOULD MEET AT CITY HALL AT 6:00 PM EXCEPT FOR JULY 11TH WHEN WE'D MEET AT 5:00 PM CITY HALL. OKAY. WAS THERE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? SECONDED FROM COMMISSIONER DINKLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE 2023 CALENDAR? THAT LOOKS UNANIMOUS. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM SEVEN. I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE ANYTHING TO TALK ABOUT HERE, BUT WE WILL THEN MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER [8. Discussion and possible action to provide a recommendation to Council regarding amendments to Title 25 to create a foundational ordinance for Transit System Projects to facilitate the construction of critical transportation infrastructure. (Sponsors: Chair Barrera-Ramirez and Vice-Chair Kiolbassa)] EIGHT. AND THIS IS WHEN I'M GIVING THE MICROPHONE OVER TO COMMISSIONER SMITH IS GOING TO TAKE THIS, OR COMMISSIONER DILER. DO YOU WANNA DO IT OR? UM, I'M, UH, I'D RATHER NOT. I'M NOT. SO I AM GOING TO, I'M RECUSING MYSELF FROM THIS ITEM, AND I'M JUST GONNA STAY UP HERE AND BE QUIET. OKAY? SURE. COMMISSIONER, LAY ON ANDREW. UM, I BELIEVE WE HAVE, UH, SOME INDIVIDUALS RECUSING. SO IF WE CAN STATE FOR THE RECORD, THE PURPOSE. OH, YEAH, HE'S RIGHT. I AM RECUSING MYSELF BECAUSE I AM A CAPITAL METRO EMPLOYEE. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER. START. AND I'M RECUSING MYSELF BECAUSE I'M AN EMPLOYEE OF THE AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP. ARE WE STILL GOOD WITH OUR QUORUM? SORRY. LIKEWISE. I HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF AS I'M A CONTRACTOR OF CAPITAL METRO THAT LEAVE US WITH SIX WHO ARE NOT RECUSING. DOES A RECUSAL COUNT TOWARDS THE SIX IS TOWARDS A QUORUM OR NOT? SIX IS A QUORUM. OKAY. SO WE HAVE TO HAVE ALL SIX OF US VOTE TO VOTE. OKAY. LACK AN SUSPENSION. UM, I WILL CALL UP ITEM EIGHT, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION PROVIDER RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS, A TITLE 25 DEGREE AT A FOUNDATIONAL ORDINANCE FOR TRANSIT SYSTEM PROJECTS TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF CRITICAL TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE. IS THERE A STAFF REPORT? I'M NOT, DON'T SEE ANYBODY. CHUCK, COMMISSION LAY LIAISON, ANDREW. SO, UM, YOU ARE AT YOUR, UH, DEBATE, UH, UH, BECAUSE, UM, WE'VE HAD THE PRESENTATION YEP. AND QUESTIONS. AND WE'VE HAD TWO RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, ONE BY COMMISSIONER KING AND WHO DID THE OTHER ONE? UM, KEEL. BASA KING. DO YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT YOURS FIRST AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT KEBAS? YES. THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, AND, UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH HAD PROVIDED SOME FEEDBACK, THE, UH, EMAIL, UH, TO THE COMMISSION AND, UH, THE, AND ANDREW, DO YOU HAVE THE, THE VERSION THAT I SENT TO YOU THAT YOU COULD SHOW ON THE SCREEN CHECK COMMISSION LAYS ON ANN VERB? UH, BEAR WITH ME JUST ONE MINUTE. WE'LL, UM, HAVE THAT, UH, UPLOADED. OKAY. BECAUSE, AND WHILE HE'S LOADING THAT THE, THE CHANGE, UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH HAD RECOMMENDED A, A CHANGE TO THE BE IT RESOLVED COMPONENT OF THE, UH, UH, OUR, THE BE IT RESOLVED AND, UH, SECTION OF THE RESOLUTION. AND SO WHILE, UM, THAT, UH, [00:50:01] VERSION IS BEING BROUGHT UP, I'LL JUST EXPLAIN THAT. SORRY, COMMISSIONER KEEN. I'M SORRY. COULD YOU POINT TO IT IN OUR BACKUP? I I'M NOT FINDING IT. YES. UH, IT, IT'S THE SAME RESOLUTION THAT WE HAD AS BACK UP ON THE LAST MEETING LAST TIME. IS THAT WHERE I GO? YES. YES. AND THEN I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU ABOUT A CHANGE THAT COMMISSIONER SMITH HAD RECOMMENDED, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ABOUT TO DO. OKAY. SO IT'S, IT'S THE SAME VERSION THAT WAS POSTED AT LAST MEETINGS AT OUR LAST MEETING. SO, UH, AND THEN THE CHANGE THAT COMMISSIONER SMITH HAD RECOMMENDED WAS TO ADD TO THE BE IT RESOLVED. AND I'M GONNA READ THE, THE NEW BE IT RESOLVED HERE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY DO NOT MATERIALLY DELAY PROJECT CONNECT PROJECTS OR ADD SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL COSTS, THE ZONING IMPLANTING COMMISSION ENCOURAGES THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. SO THE CHANGE THERE IS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY DO NOT MATERIALLY DELAY PROJECT CONNECT PROJECTS OR ADD SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL COSTS, THAT'S THE ADDITION TO THAT, BE IT RESOLVED. THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE. THAT'S THE ONLY ADDITION. AND THEN I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER KOBASA HAS, UH, ALSO AN, A CHANGE OF RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO THE RESOLUTION. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON COMMISSIONER KING'S? UM, RESOLUTION AS MODIFIED BY MYSELF? I'M STILL NOT ABLE TO LOCATE IT. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF ANDREW, YOU CAN SEND ME AN EMAIL. SORRY, I'VE GOT IT ON MY COMPUTER, BUT THAT'D HELP YOU. , I REMEMBER IT. I JUST CAN'T FIND IT. I BELIEVE IT'S STILL POSTED ON THE WEBSITE FOR, FOR OUR LAST MEETING. I DID FIND IT. COMMISSIONER KING, I JUST FOUND. YEAH. YEAH, IT WAS JUST POPPED UP. IT WAS THERE AND IT WENT AWAY. GREENBOOK. IT WAS ON THE SCREEN FOR HALF A SECOND. OKAY. THERE WE GO. THERE WE GO. AND THE PART THAT WAS BEEN MODIFIED IS WHAT'S UNDERLINED? YES. YEAH. I, I WILL JUST SHARE IF IT'S ALL RIGHT. UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH, I CAN MAKE A FEW COMMENTS. SURE. GO AHEAD. UM, I, I STILL FIND THE WORDING OF THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION PROBLEMATIC AND, UM, I, I FEEL LIKE IT IS, UH, TOO OPEN-ENDED AND SOME OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS EXCITING THAT OF THIS ENO REPORT. I WENT AND READ THE REPORT AND I JUST FOUND THAT IT SORT OF A GROSS SIMPLIFICATION OF THAT REPORT. AND, UM, IT FEELS A LITTLE BIT LIKE A LIGHT CHAT TO ME. I KNOW THEY'RE SAYING THEY'LL HAVE TO COME BACK FOR THE SUBJECT MATTER CHANGES, BUT EVEN WITH THAT, IT ALLOWS SOME SORT OF, UM, LANGUAGE THAT I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT MEANS PERSONALLY. SO LIKE THERE WAS SOME FAST TRACK LANGUAGE AND I, I MEAN, I COULD GO THROUGH AND ASK QUESTIONS. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE STAFF PRESENT THOUGH. DO WE HAVE STAFF TO QUESTION? SAY AGAIN? ARE THERE STAFF PRESENT THAT I CAN ASK? YES, DONNA, GO. LOTTI IS HERE. OKAY, GREAT. UM, LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN SECTION OF THE AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE RIGHT PLACE TO LOOK, BUT, UM, THE FAST TRACK PERMIT SAYS IT ALLOWS THE DIRECTOR TO APPROVE A FAST TRACK PERMIT THAT REQUIRES A VARIANCE. I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THAT ONE. THE ONE BEFORE THAT THE ENGINEERING PLAN SAID THAT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PHASES COULD BE ADDED TO AN IMPROVED SITE PLAN. UM, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT. I MEAN, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A DONNA GALO ALLOW, UH, DONNA GALOTTI, UH, PRO THE CITY'S PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE. SO ON THAT FIRST SECTION THAT YOU ASKED ABOUT REGARDING, SO THAT ENABLES, THE DIRECTOR IS ONLY APPROVING THE SITE PLAN AFTER THE VARIANCE HAS GONE THROUGH THE NORMAL PUBLIC PROCESS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. SO THAT ONLY BECAUSE IN TODAY'S FAST TRACK SECTION, IF YOU NEED A VARIANCE, YOU CAN'T EVEN DO THE LAYERED REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AND WHAT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD ALLOW IS FOR THAT, IF THERE WAS A, A CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH A STRETCH OF, OF, UM, MAYBE A STRETCH OF RAIL WANTING TO DO THE LAYERED REVIEW AND APPROVAL, BUT THEY NEEDED A VARIANCE, THIS ORDINANCE WOULD ENABLE THEM TO STILL HAVE THE LAYERED REVIEW. BUT THAT VARIANCE WOULD BE PROCESSED THROUGH ALL THE REGULAR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. OKAY. AND PUBLIC HEARINGS. BUT WITH THAT FIRST LAYER, INSTEAD OF STAFF SAYING, OH, WELL YOU JUST, YOU CAN'T DO THE LAYERED REVIEW AT ALL. AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION YOU HAD WAS THE, OH, TO ALLOW IT AS UPDATES IN THE, THE, THE CHANGE IS INSTEAD OF A REVISION. SO, UM, INSTEAD OF THE APPLICANT HAVING TO COME THROUGH IT AS A REVISION, WHICH IS, [00:55:01] UH, UH, IT'S A MORE EXPENSIVE APPLICATION, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO COME THROUGH AS UPDATES. SO ALL OF THE REVIEW IS STILL THE SAME. IT'S REALLY JUST A CHANGE IN, UM, THE WAY THAT THE FOLDER IS IN THE DATABASE AND THE COST OF THE APPLICATION. CAN I JUST, SO ON THAT ONE, IT SAYS A MOD, UH, THIS IS THE ENGINEERING PLAN IS MODIFIED TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTAL, UH, DEVELOPMENT PHASES TO BE ADDED TO A SITE PLAN. SO YES. CAN YOU JUST GIMME AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT AN ADDED PHASE WOULD BE? SURE, SURE. SO MAYBE THERE'S A STRETCH OF RAIL TODAY AND IT'S JUST, UH, OR, OR, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FIRST, THEY, THEY APPLY FOR A STRETCH OF RAIL AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S REALLY BORING. IT'S JUST RAIL. THE FIRST LAYER IS MOVING UTILITIES, AND I'M JUST, UM, BEAR WITH ME WHILE I IMAGINE A MAKE BELIEVE STORY. THANK YOU . AND, UM, SO THE FIRST LAYER IS MOVING UTILITIES. THE SECOND LAYER IS PUTTING THE RAIL, RIGHT? AND THEN YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY, IT'S LIKE, OH, THERE SHOULD BE A STATION HERE. YOU KNOW, AND, AND, AND THERE'S MONEY FOR SUCH A STATION. SO THAT WOULD BE ENABLED TO BE ADDED AS A PHASE SO THAT THE CASE NUMBERS STAYED THE SAME IN THE DATABASE. AND, AND THAT WOULD ENABLE, SO SOME OF OUR DEPARTMENTS TRACK THINGS BY A CASE NUMBER OR PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN IT, AND IT'S UNDER A CASE NUMBER AND YOU WANNA KNOW MORE ABOUT IT. SO INSTEAD OF SAYING, WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS SECTION HAS MULTIPLE CASE NUMBERS AND, AND EITHER AS AN INTERESTED PARTY OR AS A, AS A REVIEWER OR, OR WHAT HAVE, WHOEVER YOU ARE, YOU WOULD BE, IT'D BE EASIER TO FIND THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, WHETHER IT'S AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP AS THE APPLICANT, OR INTERESTED PARTIES WANTING TO KNOW ABOUT WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GOING ON, WHAT WAS HERE BEFORE, WHAT'S GOING ON NEXT, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE SAME CASE NUMBER AND WOULD IT TRIGGER THE SAME AMOUNT OF NOTIFICATION YES. FOR AFFECTED PARTIES? YES. SO IT STILL WOULD WITH THAT LANGUAGE. YES. AND, AND THESE AMENDMENTS, YOU KNOW, NOW IS A GOOD TIME FOR, UM, ME TO BE ABLE TO, AS THE PERMITTING LEAD IN THE CITY'S PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE TO START WORKING WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF ON, YOU KNOW, APPLICATION CHECKLISTS AND THOSE DETAILS SO THAT WHEN APPLICATIONS COME IN, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE FROM INTAKE STAFF TO CASE MANAGERS HAS, YOU KNOW, A REAL STEP BY STEP GUIDE OF EXACTLY HOW THESE CASE NUMBERS WOULD WORK AND, AND, AND ALL OF THOSE DETAILS. AND NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO START THAT, UM, THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND THAT WORK. UM, AND THIS ORDINANCE WOULD ENABLE, THAT WOULD ENABLE US TO REALLY, REALLY DO THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, IT TAKING ALL OF THESE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION, THE, THE LAYERED REVIEWS AND, AND WHATNOT. UM, AND THAT WOULD HELP IT WITH COST AND, UM, STREAMLINING THE EFFORT AS TIME. RIGHT. I, I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY THOUGH, BUT WHEN A PHASE IS ADDED, THAT RE-TRIGGERS NOTIFICATION, LIKE OF NEIGHBORS, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, ET FEDERAL. YES, BECAUSE THE NOTIFICA, WHEN STAFF LOOKS AT THE NOTIFICATION, THEY LOOK AT WHAT THAT NOTIFICATION SAID INITIALLY. AND YOU KNOW, IF IT JUST SAID REELECT, WE WOULD, AND, AND IT'S ALSO, UM, CHAIR COMMISSION, LADIES ON INVER. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. UM, BUT, UH, IF WE COULD AT EASE UNTIL WE HAVE A MEMBER PRESENT, ADDITIONAL MEMBER PRESENT. WE DON'T MEET QUORUM RIGHT NOW. OKAY. WE'RE GOOD HERE. WE'RE BACK. OKAY. , I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T WANT YOU TO HAVE TO WATCH ME TRY TO, UM, PLUG IN MY, PLUG IN MY COMPUTER IN A PLACE THAT I'M KIND OF UNFAMILIAR WITH, BUT I'M BACK AND AUSTIN TRANSIT, UM, AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP, THEY'RE NOT HERE TODAY, BUT I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING A ROBUST NOTIFICATION, UM, YOU KNOW, POLICY AND, AND UP, YOU KNOW, IN A WEB PRESENCE, A PLACE TO GO WHERE PEOPLE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE RAIL OVER TIME IS VERY IMPORTANT TO AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP. UM, AND, AND SO THAT, THAT WOULD, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S BEEN A REALLY IMPRESSIVE ENGAGEMENT PROCESS. BUT I THINK, UM, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD PROBABLY AGREE THAT A LOT OF THIS, UM, THESE CONCEPTS DON'T BECOME REAL UNTIL THEY'RE HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, IN A, IN A REAL TIME AND IN FRONT OF, IN FRONT OF YOU. AND SO I THINK A LOT OF FOLKS, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S BEEN THIS INCREDIBLE OUTREACH, THEY'RE NOT GONNA UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS TO THEM AND THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD UNTIL IT STARTS TO HAPPEN. AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT SAYING BY SUPPORTING THIS, THAT WE WOULDN'T BE SAYING THAT YOU COULD SKIP THAT SITE SPECIFIC ENGAGEMENT. THAT'S, THAT'S MY MAIN CONCERN. ABSOLUTELY. UNDERSTOOD. THANKS. [01:00:01] ANY OTHER QUE UH, COMMISSIONER KING? YES. UH, THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO, TO, UH, MAKE SURE THAT, UH, EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THERE'S, THERE'S NO, NO NO COMPONENT OF THIS RESOLUTION THAT SAYS THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION ORDINANCE. YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CAN MAKE, YOU KNOW, IMPLICATIONS ABOUT IT, WHATEVER, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT WE SUPPORT THAT OR THAT WE, YOU KNOW, APPROVE OF THE ORDINANCE. COMMISSIONER KE BUSSEL, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP. YOU'RE STILL MUTED. OKAY. YES, THERE WE GO. THEN I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP WITH COMMISSIONER THOMPSON'S QUESTION CUZ I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS. AND THEN I WONDER WHY DOES IT SAY THE WHOLE THING WITH THE SITE PLAN AND ALL THAT? I, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHY SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE IS THERE, IF YOU CAN STILL HAVE NOTIFICATION IF IT'S STILL THE SAME PROCESS, WHAT CHANGES? UM, WHAT CHANGES IS ALLOWING FOR, UM, SO NOTIFICATION IS NOT SENT FOR REVISIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS. UM, A REVISION IS A SMALL CHANGE. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE NATURE OF IT. MAYBE A SMALL EDITION, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY YOU CANNOT ADD A BUILDING WITH A REVISION, BUT YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, MODIFY, UH, A PORTION OF IT. UH, PARTICULARLY, YOU KNOW, IF, IF CONSTRUCTION HASN'T COMMENCED OR WE WERE STILL WITHIN THE LIFE OF THE SITE PLAN. UM, CHANGING IT FROM A, REQUIRING A REVISION TO REQUIRING IT OR TO ALLOWING IT AS AN UPDATE JUST CHANGES THE, UM, THE APPLICATION COST. IT MAKES THE CASE NUMBER, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T HAVE AN EXTRA SUFFIX. SO REVISIONS HAVE, IN THE CASE NUMBER REVISIONS, HAVE AN EXTRA SUFFIX. THIS WOULD JUST BE AN UPDATE. IT WOULD STILL GO THROUGH ALL OF THE REVIEWS, UM, MOVING ON. UM, AND IT, AND, AND MOST OF THESE ALLOW FOR, UM, THE, THIS LAYERED APPROACH OF REVIEW. SO THE EXAMPLE, THE EXAMPLE I'VE BEEN USING IS POTENTIALLY A STRETCH OF RAIL IN WHICH THEY WANT ONE PERMIT. AND FOR THE FIRST LAYER TO BE REVIEWED IS, UM, UTILITY RELOCATION, THE SECOND LAYER PLACING RAIL. AND IN TODAY'S CODE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE SITE PLANS TO DO THAT. SO EVERY SEGMENT THAT COMES IN WOULD BE TWO SEC. IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, ONE THIS SEGMENT INSTEAD OF ONE UMBRELLA IN WHICH ALL INTERESTED PARTY CITIZENS AND, AND THE APPLICANT AND REVIEWERS COULD LOOK AT ONE CASE NUMBER, THEY WOULD HAVE MULTIPLE CASE NUMBERS WITHIN THERE, ONE CASE NUMBER FOR, AND, AND SO IF YOU WERE WONDERING WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH A CERTAIN STRETCH, YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIND, YOU KNOW, OH, THIS IS THE CASE NUMBER FOR THE UTILITY RELOCATION, THAT'S THE CASE NUMBER FOR THE RAIL. AND, AND OH, NOW THERE'S THIS THIRD CASE NUMBER, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SOME NUMBER OF YEARS AND, AND, AND IT'S BEEN FOUND THAT THERE'S A STATION. IT, IT HELPS THE GENERAL PUBLIC. AND AS AN ENGINEER, IT HELPS ME, WHEN YOU LOOK UP A PROJECT, YOU SEE EVERYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PROJECT. YOU SEE THE UTILITIES, THE RAIL, YOU SEE ALL THE REVISIONS. SO EVERYTHING IS IN ONE LOCATION. I DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THREE SEPARATE FILES TO FIND THREE SEPARATE PHASES. IT'S ALL IN ONE PLACE. SO ALLS THE PHASING DOES, IT SAYS IT CAN BE UNDER ONE NUMBER, IT CAN BE UNDER ONE PLACE. WHEN YOU GO TO LOOK IT UP, YOU LOOK UP THAT ONE NUMBER AND EVERYTHING IS IN THAT ONE FILE AND FOLDER SO YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO LOOK UP IN THREE DIFFERENT PLACES, THREE DIFFERENT THINGS, AND TRY TO PIECE IT ALL TOGETHER. SO THAT'S WHAT THE PHASING DOES. DOESN'T CHANGE THE REGULATIONS OR THE RULES OR THE ANYTHING ELSE. MAKES THAT THE COST REDUCED A LITTLE BIT. OKAY. AND MAKES IT EASIER TO LOOK UP LATER ON. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU . OKAY, THEN I HAVE A QUESTION THEN RELATED TO THAT, AND ALSO ALONG THE SAME LINES AS COMMISSIONER THOMPSON'S, AND THAT IS IN THIS, IN, UM, THE, OR THE REVIEW SHEET. IT SAYS, THIS IS A FOUNDATIONAL ORDINANCE CREATING A PLACE FOR ANY FUTURE CODE AMENDMENTS AND PROPOSES FIVE MAIN COMPONENTS. WHAT IS A FOUNDATIONAL ORDINANCE? UH, THANK YOU. SO, UM, WELL THE, THE AIRPORT HAS A, AN ORDINANCE THAT COVERS ALL OF THE AIRPORT PROPERTY, HAS SOME REGULATIONS IN IT. WERE THE AIRPORT TO FIND OVER TIME THAT THEY NEEDED A CODE AMENDMENT. THE LAW DEPARTMENT COULD AMEND THAT ORDINANCE. THAT WOULD BE A PLACE WHERE YOU AND, AND FOR REVIEW STAFF AND APPLICANTS, UM, THAT'S THIS ONE ORDINANCE, THAT'S WHERE YOU GO TO LEARN HOW TO, HOW TO REVIEW OR, OR WHAT THE REGULATIONS ARE [01:05:01] AT THIS TIME. WHAT YOU SEE IN THE ORD IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE IS NEEDED NOW FOR WHERE WE ARE. AND IT'S THINGS THAT WE KNOW AND, AND I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THAT THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONS. UM, YOU KNOW, I CAN IMAGINE THAT THROUGH DESIGN AND, AND, UM, AS DESIGN AND SCOPE PROGRESSES, WE ARE WORK AUSTIN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP, THE CITY'S PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE, AND THE DEPARTMENTS ARE WORKING TOGETHER COLLABORATIVELY AND TO WORK ON, YOU KNOW, SYSTEM-WIDE, UM, SOLUTIONS FOR HOW TO REVIEW A, A LONG, A LARGE SCOPE, YOU KNOW, AND, AND SO, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY BEST CASE SCENARIO THERE, THERE ISN'T ONE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S A WAY TO, TO REVIEW THE, THESE THINGS AND, AND, AND MEET CODE AS IS. UM, IT IS, IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT THROUGH THE COURSE OF WORKING WITH DEPARTMENTS, YOU KNOW, THEY DECIDE TO, YOU KNOW, TO REVIEW IF, IF, IF YOU WANNA REVIEW SOMETHING THE SYSTEM WAY AND A CODE, THEY FIND A CODE PROVISION THAT PROHIBITS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THEN THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER TI THAT WOULD BE A TIME WHEN AN AMENDMENT WOULD BE NEEDED. AND THEN WE WOULD START THIS WHOLE, UH, ORDINANCE PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN. UM, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT INSTEAD OF JUST BEING LIKE A SEPARATE ORDINANCE OVER HERE, WE WOULD, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE ONE PLACE TO GO. UM, BUT THAT WOULD BE, UM, IT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE A WHOLE OTHER, UM, ORDINANCE, PROCESS. COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, SO YOU SAID IF THERE'S A ADDITION THAT THE LAW DEPARTMENT WOULD, UM, MAKE THE REVISION AS OPPOSED TO THE COUNCIL? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. UM, JUST THE TYPE OF ORDINANCE WE JUST STARTED. JUST THE TYPE OF, OR JUST HOW IT WAS, UM, HOW IT WAS WRITTEN AND WHAT POINT. IT'S WHEN, WHEN I SAY THAT IT WOULD GO THROUGH ALL THE NORMAL PROCESS, THAT WE WOULD GO THROUGH ALL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, UM, AND, AND COUNSEL, IS IT SIMILAR TO WHAT I WOULD CALL A FOUNDATIONAL ORDINANCE? WE HAVE WITH A I S D WHERE WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE WITH ASD AND THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE DONE FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BECAUSE OF OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ARE UNIQUE. UM, AND SO THERE ARE CERTAIN ORDINANCE WAIVERS THAT ARE DONE AND THINGS THAT ARE DONE IN THAT ORDINANCE. AND IF YOU MAKE CHANGES, YOU JUST CHANGE THAT FOUNDATIONAL ORDINANCE. YOU DON'T CHANGE THE CODE. RIGHT, RIGHT. AND YOU WOULD, AND IT WAS, YOU'D STILL GO TO ALL THE SAME BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPROVED AND, AND NOT, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S ULTIMATELY IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL. SO ANY CHANGE AT ALL HAS TO BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL. UM, BEING A FOUNDATIONAL ORDINANCE, IT JUST MEANS THAT YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WHEN THERE'S DIFFERENT STAFF, THEY KNOW, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THIS IS WHERE IT GOES VERSUS RIGHT. SOME OTHER, YOU KNOW, SEPARATE ORDINANCE. BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE ALL OF THESE DISPARATE ORDINANCES THAT ARE ALL ABOUT PROJECT CONNECT, BUT SEPARATE. IT'S, YOU KNOW, ONE PROJECT CONNECT ORDINANCE TO MAKE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE CAN GET OUT OF OUR OWN WAY AND STREAMLINE, UM, THE REVIEW IS HAVING IT, UH, HAVING A SITUATION IN WHICH REVIEWERS, APPLICANTS CITIZENS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN WHAT REGULATIONS APPLY, THEY HAVE ONE PLACE TO GO. RIGHT. SO WE'VE DONE IT WITH ASD, WE'VE DONE IT WITH THE AIRPORT. IT MAKES SENSE TO DO IT HERE CUZ THIS IS GONNA BE A VERY LONG TERM PROJECT. THIS CAN BE GOING ON FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. SO, YES. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, BEFORE WE TAKE UP THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KING, DO WE WANT, UM, COMMISSIONER K BOSSEL, DO YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT YOUR YES. COMMENT THAT WAY WE CAN. I CAN GO AHEAD. YES. UM, JUST BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY THE BEGINNING OF THIS SHOULD BE THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS, UM, BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION DID DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER AND ANDREW, I CAN'T TELL IF IT'S UP ON THE SCREEN CUZ IT'S PRETTY BRIEF, BUT IT, THIS, THE CITY MANAGER ASKED THIS WAS ASKED TO REVIEW CITY CODE TO IDENTIFY IMPEDIMENTS TO THE DESIGN CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION ON OPERATION OF PROJECT CONNECT AND TO DEVELOP NEW QUOTE, DEVELOP NEW REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS THE IMPEDIMENTS. AND I DO NOT SEE ANY IMPEDIMENTS IDENTIFIED. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IMPEDIMENTS IDENTIFIED, AND I THINK THIS COULD BE JUST PART OF THE MOTION AND, UM, IT COULD, IT WOULD JUST BE AN AMENDMENT AND WE COULD MOVE ON. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT COMMISSIONER KEEL BOSS'S RESOLUTION? [01:10:01] NOT A QUESTION. OH, SORRY. COMMISSIONER KING, CAN YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? NO. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, GO RIGHT AHEAD. NO, I CAN'T SEE ANYBODY AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THE RESOLUTIONS ON THE SCREEN. . YEAH, WE CAN'T SEE YOU EITHER. IT'S KINDA FUN. COMMISSIONER KING, LET'S DO, LET'S DO THIS. COMMISSIONER KING, GO AHEAD. OKAY, GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. YOU I'LL BE UP TO YOU. I'LL QUICK AND JUST SAY AGAIN, I READ THAT REPORT THAT WAS REFERENCED AND THAT CA THAT REPORT ACTUALLY CALLS FOR PROJECT SPONSORS TO BE SELF PERMITTING. SO SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE THAT SORT OF REFERENCE TO GIVES ME PAUSE. NOT ANYTHING THAT I'M HEARING FROM STAFF TONIGHT, WHICH SOUNDS, UH, COMPLETELY LOGICAL, BUT IT, UH, SOME OF THE SORT OF ETHOS BEHIND IT IS GIVING ME PAUSE. I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT COMMISSIONER KIVAS PUT FORWARD. I I GUESS I WOULD ASK IF I COULD, AGAIN, THE STAFF, JUST WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS, UM, OF THAT REQUEST THAT THESE I THESE IMPEDIMENTS BE IDENTIFIED? IS THAT, DOES THAT A, DOES THAT CREATE, UM, DOES IT CHANGE WHAT'S POSSIBLE WITH THIS RECOMMENDED PROCESS OR HAS THERE BEEN, HAS THERE BEEN AN EFFORT TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC IMPEDIMENTS THAT YOU ENVISION WITHIN THIS CHAPTER OF RULES? YES. JUST A MOMENT. YEAH. AND, AND COULD WE HAVE A LIST OF THE IMPEDIMENTS? YES. OKAY. PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE STAFF HAVE SCANNED CODE AND CRITERIA, UM, GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW TODAY, THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU ADDRESSES THE IMPEDIMENTS THAT ARE BEFORE US NOW. AND SO THAT IS, YOU KNOW, HAVING A FOUNDATION, HAVING AN ORDINANCE, ONE PLACE TO GO TO MAKE ANY CHANGES THAT ARE NEEDED OVER TIME. UM, WAIT, DEFINING STOP. WE'VE ONLY GOT FIVE. SORRY. . THERE WE GO. WE CAN GO AGAIN NOW. OKAY. UM, YOU KNOW, SO, SO IT'S, IT IS THE, IT IS THE, THE ELEMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE ARE, UM, ADDRESSING THE IED THE IMPEDIMENTS THAT WE HAVE TODAY. AND, YOU KNOW, WE DID SCAN CODE AND WE CAN IMAGINE, YOU KNOW, ONE THING OR ANOTHER THAT YOU KNOW, AND, AND WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A LOT OF, OF IS, OF A LOT OF PIECES OF CODE THAT ARE CHALLENGES. UM, AND WE ARE WORK AND WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH DEPARTMENTS, UM, TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO WITH THOSE CHALLENGES. HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THEM? HOW CAN WE WORK WITHIN THE CODE? UH, HOW CAN WE CREATE, UM, UH, SYSTEM WIDE, UM, METHODS TO, TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES. UM, AND, AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THAT WORK, IF WE LAND IN A PLACE WHERE A CODE AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY, WE WILL GO BACK THROUGH BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROCESS AND ENDING AT COUNCIL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THIS FOUNDATIONAL ORDINANCE. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, WE DID SCAN ALL CODE AND CRITERIA AND WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU WITH THE DRAFT ORDINANCE IS THE, THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE TODAY THAT ARE, UH, IMPEDIMENTS, MAKING SURE THAT THE, THE USES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED ARE, ARE IN THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE THAT, UM, TO MAKE SCOPE AND DESIGN AND, AND TALKING WITH REVIEW STAFF, UM, EASIER, THAT SORT OF THING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING COMMISSION O KEEL? BOSS'S, LET ME ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF. YOU SEEN THE TWO RESOLUTIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANY PAUSE OR ISSUES WITH EITHER ONE OF THE RESOLUTIONS? I DIDN'T SEE IT AS TWO RESOLUTIONS IS JUST TWO PARAGRAPHS TO ADD. UM, I WOULD JUST EMPHASIZE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE TODAY IS, IS ADDRESSING CURRENT ISSUES THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED. RIGHT. UM, AND YOU KNOW, AND YOU KNOW, WE DO INTEND TO TO KEEP COLLABORATING WITH DEPARTMENTS, UH, MOVING FORWARD. AND, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE, IF WE COLLABORATE WITH DEPARTMENTS AND FIND AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT'S NECESSARY AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GO BACK THROUGH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THAT COUNCIL RESOLUTION WE WANT, WE WOULD BE GOING BACK THROUGH, UH, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND COUNCIL. OKAY. COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, YOU SAID SOMETHING CURIOUS, I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THIS BEFORE, BUT WHAT YOU SAID WAS WE WOULD BASICALLY TAKE THE DRAFT THAT WAS DONE BY COMMISSIONER KING, ADD ONE WHEREAS, AND ADD ONE, BE IT RESOLVED TO THAT DOCUMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? I, I MEAN, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR KI BOSSA. I'M JUST TRYING TO RE ARE ARE YOU, ARE YOU BOTH OKAY [01:15:01] WITH THAT? I, I, I WROTE, I I WROTE IT AS AN AMENDMENT JUST BECAUSE IN THE ORIGINAL COUNSEL RESOLUTION IT SAYS EXACTLY THAT. SO I FEEL LIKE IT'S IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE EXACTLY THAT AND IT WOULD ALSO, I MEAN I APPRECIATE WHAT STAFF HAS DONE, BUT IT WOULD JUST BE REALLY GOOD TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE IMPEDIMENTS ARE. AND I THINK FOR ANOTHER WEIRD REASON, AND THAT IS CUZ YOU, COMMISSIONER SMITH BROUGHT UP REALLY GOOD POINTS ABOUT PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO FIND INFORMATION RELATED CA OR SITE PLAN INFORMATION IN ONE PLACE. WHY CAN'T, IF WE, WHY CAN'T WE JUST DO THAT FOR ALL CASES? SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT GOING ON HERE AND THAT I WOULD LOVE IT IF WE DID THAT FOR ALL CASES . YEAH, NO, IT'S, YOU WOULD MAKE MY LIFE MUCH EASIER AS A DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER. . YEAH, NO, EXACTLY. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK IT SHOULD JUST BE AN, IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO ADD TO, UM, COMMISSIONER KING'S RESOLUTION. WE'RE GONNA TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND SO WE'LL BE BACK IN FIVE MINUTES. SORRY, THERE'S FOUR OF US. THERE WE GO. THERE'S SIX OF US. UM, LET ME TRY TO PUT THIS TOGETHER. THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT DOES, WHAT WE HAVE IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM COMMISSIONER KING AS AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH. AND AGAIN, AS AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER KEO BASA. SO IF I CAN HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER KING'S AMENDED RECOMMENDATION. I THINK WE'RE ALL GOOD. DOES SOMEONE WANNA MAKE A MOTION? I'LL MOVE. OKAY. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KEIO BASA. DO I HEAR A SECOND? COMMISSIONER KING MAKES A SECOND. UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND, SAY AYE. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. WE DO HAVE SIX. IT IS UNANIMOUS. OKAY. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NO ONE OPPOSED? OKAY. NO ABSTENTIONS. WE HAD THREE. NOT ABSTENTIONS, BUT YES. SO WE'RE ALL GOOD. DONE. UM, THE CHAIR HAS LEFT THE BUILDING. UH, I THINK WE'RE BASICALLY ABOUT DONE. LET ME PULL UP MY AGENDA AGAIN. UM, SORRY. SO, WELL, WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, I THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION FOR SUPPORTING THE RESOLUTION. I APPRECIATE IT. AND, AND THE AMENDMENTS AS WELL AND THE DISCUSSION. IT'S VERY INFORMED THAT THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU FOR PREPARING THAT. VERY GOOD. UM, REPORTS FROM CODES AND ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE, UH, CHAIR COMMISSION, HEVE. I APOLOGIZE. UM, WE JUST, UM, MISSED, UH, ONE, UH, PORTION. IT'S A FEATURE BUSINESS AND I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER KING, UH, SORRY, WAS GOING TO REQUEST A BRIEFING ON, UM, RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL FUTURE AGENDA [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS] ITEMS. COMMISSIONER KING, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? YOU'RE MUTED. YES. THE, THE AGENDA ITEM WAS ABOUT THE, UH, HANG ON, I WANT TO GET THAT RIGHT. IT'S ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL USE IN THOSE, IN THOSE, UH, ZONING CATEGORIES THAT THE COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING. UH, AND, AND I WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO BE POSTED AS A, A PUBLIC, UH, AN ITEM FOR PUBLIC DIS PUBLIC, UH, COMMENT AND FOR POSSIBLE ACTION, NOT, NOT JUST BRIEFING. OKAY. IS THERE SOMEONE TO SUPPORT THAT? OKAY. WE HAVE A SECOND. WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE, DO WE? NO, JUST TWO CO-SPONSORS. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. YOU'RE DONE. UM, AND THE CO-SPONSOR ON THAT I, I HAD WAS, UM, COMMISSIONER INKLER. SO THERE WERE SEVERAL, THERE WERE SEVERAL. DINKLER HAD HER HAND UP FIRST OVER HERE. OKAY. . OKAY. WE CAN HAVE, UH, OKAY, THAT'S TRUE. UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, YOU HAD ALSO SUPPORTED THAT. SO THREE, TWO CO-SPONSORS AND ONE SPONSOR. WHO'S THOMPSON COMMISSIONER THOMPSON AND THOMPSON. THREE CO-SPONSORS. OKAY. UM, COMMITTEE REPORTS [COMMITTEE REPORTS & WORKING GROUPS] AND WORKING GROUPS. COS IN ORDER TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE, IS THERE AN UPDATE COPY WE ESSENTIALLY MET? NO, WE, UH, NO. OKAY. COMMISSIONER DINGLER. OKAY. NO. UM, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE WE HAVEN'T MET, SO THERE'S NO UPDATE THERE. SMALL AREA PLANNING, JOINT COMMITTEE. NOTHING. NOTHING. I THOUGHT WE MET ABOUT THE, UM, PALM DISTRICT. NO, YOU'RE MUTED. COMMISSIONER KING. UH, WE REPORTED THAT AT OUR LAST ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BUT WE DIDN'T SINCE THEN. WE HAVE NOT HAD ANOTHER, UH, SMALL AREA MEETING. OKAY. AND THE ONION CREEK LOCALIZED FLOOD WORK GROUP. THERE'S BEEN NOTHING ON THAT ONE. THAT'S IT. DO I HEAR A MOTION TO [01:20:01] ADJOURN? MOTION IS MADE. SECONDED. I DON'T THINK YOU NEED A MOTION. YOU JUST ADUR YOU JUST NEED TO ADJOURN. YOU NEED A MOTION. SOMEONE SAYS ADJOURN AND YOU ADJOURN. . THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SMITH . I GOT HOUSE OVER THE, I GOT A HOUSE ON A HILL. I'M LOOKING OUT OVER THE SEA, LIVING ON THE ISLAND. GOING TO MAKE A MOTY MESS WITH ME. I GOT A JOB PAINTING HOUSES. I, HE, THOSE HEAVY PAIN. I GOT A JOB, PAINT NEW HOUSES. I, HE, THOSE HEAVY PAIN. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.