[00:00:02]
[CALL TO ORDER]
ROLLING HERE.UM, IT'S JANUARY 18TH, 2023 6:00 PM UM, WE'RE HERE TO MEET REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
UM, WE'RE UP AT 63 10 WILHELMINA DELCO DRIVE.
AND I GUESS FIRST THING WE'LL DO IS ROLL CALL, UM, REMOTE COMMISSIONERS.
COMMISSIONER KREI HERE, SCOTT.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU.
[1. Approval the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on December 7, 2022 (5 minutes)]
COMMUNICATIONS.WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM ONE, WHICH IS TO REVIEW, UH, AND APPROVE THE MINUTES THAT WERE DISTRIBUTED.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY, UH, COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MINUTES THAT WERE DISTRIBUTED? MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
WE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND BY SCOTT.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.
[2. Name: Estates at Juniper Summit Water Service Extension Request #5522 (30 minutes)]
RIGHT.UM, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO IS THE ESTATES AT JUNIPER SUMMIT WATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST 55 22.
UM, I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE A, A STAFF PRESENTATION.
MY NAME IS KAYLA CHAPLIN WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT.
I'M JUST GONNA WAIT ONE MOMENT TO GET MY PRESENTATION GOING.
AND, UM, I THINK MAYBE WHILE I'M UP HERE, BEFORE I START ON THE PUBLIC HEARING, JUST FOR ANYBODY WHO DIDN'T MEET ELIZABETH, WE HAVE A NEW STAFF MEMBER, ELIZABETH FUNK.
WE'RE SUPER EXCITED TO HAVE HER.
SHE'S GONNA BE ON OUR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND REVIEW TEAM, AND SHE'S GOING TO BE OUR NEW PRIMARY STAFF LIAISON FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
SO, UM, DEFINITELY CHECK YOUR EMAIL IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ELIZABETH'S BACKGROUND, AND WE'LL DEFINITELY HAVE SOME TIME TO GET TO KNOW HER BETTER SOON.
WE'LL TRY NOT TO SCARE YOU TOO MUCH, I PROMISE.
SO TONIGHT STAFF ARE REQUESTING THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE ESTATES AT JUNIPER SUMMIT WATER SURFACE EXTENSION REQUEST.
AND THAT'S, UM, S E R NUMBER 5 5 22.
AND, UH, BEFORE WE DIVE IN, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF S SCR SINCE THESE CASES DON'T COME BEFORE YOU THAT OFTEN.
UM, AND THERE ARE SOME DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN OTHER TYPES OF CASES THAT YOU SEE REGULARLY.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO MOVE A LITTLE BOX OVER SO THAT THE TEXT CAN BE SEEN FULLY? THANK YOU.
SO A SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST OR SCR IS AN APPLICATION FOR WATER OR CITY WATER OR WASTEWATER SERVICE FROM A PROPERTY OWNER OR A DEVELOPER.
S SCR IS, ARE REQUIRED WHEN A PROPERTY IS LOCATED MORE THAN A HUNDRED FEET FROM AN ACCESSIBLE WATER OR WASTEWATER SYSTEM, OR WHEN EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE IS INADEQUATE.
FOR PROPOSED PROJECT DEMANDS AND SERVICE MAY INVOLVE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LINE OR AN ASSOCIATED FACILITY, OR UPGRADES TO EXISTING LINES AND FACILITIES.
AND FOR, IN THESE CASES, THE APPLICANT PAYS FOR THE ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AS OUTLINED IN THE SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST.
SO, PER THE DELAY DEVELOPMENT CODE, SCRS REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL IF THEY'RE LOCATED IN THE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE AND OUTSIDE OF THE CITY'S FULL PURPOSE JURISDICTION.
SO FIRST, IT WILL COME TO YOU TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN IT WILL GO TO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER COMMISSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION.
AND THEN IT'LL GO ON TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OR DENIAL.
AND, UH, ONE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION WITH THESE CASES IS THAT YOU CANNOT PLACE ANY CONDITIONS ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
SO, UH, YOU'LL DO A RECOMMENDATION AND YOU'LL VOTE, UM, IN RECOMMEND IN RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT THE S E R.
SO, UM, THIS, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST FOR WATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST, AND THE SITE IS AT 4,700 CITY PARK ROAD.
IT'S A 7.4 ACRE TRACT LOCATED IN THE LIMITED PURPOSE JURISDICTION IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 10.
[00:05:01]
IT HAS, UH, TWO WATERSHEDS ON THE TRACK.SO IT'S PART PARTIALLY IN TURKEY CREEK WATERSHED AND PARTIALLY IN COLD WATER CREEK WATERSHED.
IT'S A WATER SUPPLY RULE CLASSIFICATION AND AGAIN, DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE.
SO FOR THIS PROJECT, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP AND SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO SIX LOTS.
UH, THE PROPERTY WILL HAVE FIVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AND THEN THE SIX LOT WILL BE USED FOR ONSITE DETENTION.
AND THEY'RE REQUESTING FIVE WATER, UH, OR FIVE LIVING UNIT EQUIVALENTS OR L UES TO SERVE THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
SO HERE'S A MAP OF THE LOCATION OF THE SITE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CITY'S FULL JURISDICTION.
THIS IS THE SITE IN THE CONTEXT OF IMAGINE AUSTIN'S GROWTH CONCEPT MAP.
IT IS NOT, NOT LOCATED NEAR ONE OF THE CENTERS OR CORRIDORS WHERE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SEEKS TO DIRECT NEW DEVELOPMENT.
HERE'S ANOTHER MAP CLOSE, MORE CLOSE UP OF THE SITE SHOWING, UH, YOU CAN SEE IT'S IN A LIMITED PURPOSE JURISDICTION ADJACENT TO EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.
AND, UH, THIS IS A MAP SHOWING THE PROPOSED WATER EXTENSION.
SO HERE, UM, YOU CAN SEE THE LITTLE LINE WHERE, UM, THE WATER MAIN IS THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT 450 FEET OF 12 INCH WATER MAIN FROM THE EXISTING 12 INCH WATER MAIN AT CITY PARK ROAD.
AND, UM, IT'LL EXTEND AND, AND IT'S AT CITY PARK ROAD AND WESTMINSTER GLEN AVENUE.
AND THEN THAT WILL EXTEND NORTH ALONG CITY PARK ROAD TO THE PROPERTY.
AND, UM, THEY'RE NOT REQUESTING A WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION AT THIS TIME.
THEY'RE PROPOSING TO UTILIZE AN ONSITE SEPTIC FACILITY OR O S S F, UM, FOR WASTEWATER SERVICE.
AND THEN THAT WILL BE SUBJECT TO TRAVIS COUNTY RULES.
UM, THIS IS JUST A DESCRIPTION OF, UM, WHAT I JUST SHOWED YOU ON THE MAP.
SO THIS IS A MAP, UM, SHOWING THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES NEAR THE PROPERTY.
UH, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS IS IN THE TURKEY CREEK AND COLD WATER CREEK WATERSHEDS.
AND, UM, THERE IS ONE SPRING CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY ALONG AN UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO TURKEY CREEK.
AND, UM, THERE ARE NO WATER QUALITY, UH, UH, CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE WATER QUALITY TRANSITION ZONES ON THE SITE.
AND ALSO THE SITE DOES NOT DRAIN TO, UH, KNOWN JOLLYVILLE PLATEAUS ED HABITAT.
AND, UM, SO BASED ON OUR ANALYSIS, WATERSHED PROTECTION IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ESTATES AT JUNIPER SUMMIT WATER SERVICE EXTENSION, AND, UH, WE HAVE STAFF HERE FROM AUSTIN WATER, AND I BELIEVE THAT APPLICANTS ENGINEERS HERE MAYBE? YES.
EDDIE BOOGER? I'M SITTING FOR EDDIE.
UH, SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK AT THIS TIME.
UM, UH, I GUESS, YEAH, MAYBE, UH, WELL, LET ME, LET ME TAKE A MOMENT HERE.
UM, I WANT TO TRY TO GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM COMMISSIONERS KIND OF MOVING INTO THIS YEAR, HOW WE WANT TO BEST NAVIGATE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
UM, I THINK WE'RE KIND OF MOSTLY BACK HERE, UM, IN PERSON, BUT, UM, BE THINKING ABOUT THAT AND FIND ME, UM, MAYBE OVER THE NEXT COUPLE MEETINGS IF YOU HAVE SOME IDEAS ON HOW WE CAN DO THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENTLY, POSSIBLY MOVING FORWARD.
BUT WITH THAT, UM, REMOTE COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS FOR EITHER STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? UH, NOT AT THIS MOMENT.
UM, ON THE DIAS, ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, MAN.
I DID, I DID VERY WELL WITH MY INTRODUCTION, I GUESS.
UM, ALRIGHT, HAVING, UH, A GREAT PRESENTATION AND NO QUESTIONS.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE GOING ON? WE HAVE A, A MOTION.
LET ME GET IT UP HERE REAL QUICK.
DO WE HAVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? MM-HMM.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'RE NINE ZERO TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, AND JUST GIVE US A COUPLE SECONDS
[00:10:02]
WHEN YOU'RE READY.THE ESTATES OF JUNIPER, UH, SUMMIT WATER SERVICE EXTENSION, REQUEST NUMBER 5 5 22.
THE LOCATION IS 4,700 CITY PARK ROAD, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78,730.
THE APPLICANT IS EDDIE BOGARD, UM, VICARY AND ASSOCIATES LLC, WHEREAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THE WASTEWATER, SORRY, RECOGNIZES THAT THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST IS LOCATED IN TURKEY CREEK, UM, AND COLD WATER CREEK WATERSHED WATER SUPPLY RULE DRINKING WATER ZONE.
UH, WHEREAS, AND WHEREAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT STAFF HAS COMPLETED THE REVIEW AND RECOMMEND THE WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST, THEREFORE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ABOVE NOTED SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST.
HOW, JUST HAVE TWO COMMENTS AND THAT THAT IS, I THINK IT'S JUST A WATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST, NOT WASTEWATER.
SO JUST WATER, NO WASTEWATER? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO I THINK IT WAS ONLY THERE TWICE, BUT YEAH, WITH, WITH THAT MINOR CHANGE, SCOTT'S GOT A SECOND.
UM, AS KAYLA NOTED, WE CAN'T REALLY PUT ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON THESE, BUT ANY DISCUSSION, UM, AT THE MOTION THAT'S IN FRONT OF US? ALL RIGHT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS PRESENTED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL RIGHT, CADENCE, HERE WE GO.
[3. Name: Alexan RR 620 Water and Wastewater Service Extension Requests #5532 and 5533 (30 minutes)]
UM, AGENDA ITEM THREE.WATER AND WASTEWATER SURFACE EXTENSION REQUESTS 5 5 32 AND 5 5 33.
UM, I THINK WE GOT ANOTHER PRESENTATION FROM KAYLA.
KAYLA CHAMPLIN WATERSHED PROTECTION AND I'LL BE REPRE PRESENTING ALEX RICH ROAD SIX 20 WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST.
AND, UM, WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR MY PRESENTATION TO QUEUE UP, UM, I HAVE SOME SLIDES THAT SAME SPIEL THAT I GAVE YOU AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LAST ONE.
IS EVERYONE COMFORTABLE WITH THE BACKGROUND ON SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST? OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND SLIP, SKIP TO SLIDE FOUR THEN, PLEASE.
SO, UM, AS NOTED, THIS IS FOR BOTH WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR A SITE AT 99 0 NORTH FM SIX 20.
IT'S A 31.47 ACRE TRACT IN THE EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.
IT'S LOCATED IN THE LAKE AUSTIN WATERSHED WATER SUPPLY, RURAL CLASSIFICATION, AND THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE.
AND, UM, AS IT IS COMING BEFORE YOU, IT IS IN THE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE.
SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A 440 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH 308 LIVING UNIT EQUIVALENTS, ORES.
UM, THERE'S ALSO SOME RETAIL ON THE PROPERTY.
IT'S A 13,800 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL WITH 8.3, AND THOSE RETAIL BUILDINGS ARE PRE-EXISTING ON THE SITE, AND SO THEY'LL BE CONVERTING OVER ONTO WATER AND WASTEWATER, UH, IF THIS S E R IS APPROVED.
THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE SITE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CITY'S FULL JURISDICTION.
AND THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION IN THE CONTEXT OF IMAGINE AUSTIN'S GROWTH CONCEPT MAP.
IT IS NOT LOCATED IN ONE OF THE CENTERS OF CORRIDORS WHERE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SEEKS TO DIRECT NEW DEVELOPMENT.
OKAY, HERE IS THE AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE, UH, PROPERTY AND THE JURISDICTIONS IN THE AREA.
SO AS MENTIONED, THIS IS IN THE ETJ AND YOU CAN SEE SO HOW THE SURROUNDING AREAS ARE ORGANIZED CURRENTLY.
IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE, BUT I'LL, I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THIS ONE.
UM, THIS IS A MAP, UM, SHOWING THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ON THE SITE.
SO THERE ARE SEVEN CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ON OR WITHIN 150 FEET, UM, OF THE BUFFER ZONE OFF THE PROPERTY.
SO THERE'S ONE RIM ROCK FEATURE LOCATED OFFSITE WITHIN THE 150 FOOT BUFFER.
SO IT'S ON IT'S NORTHWEST OF THE SITE ALONG THE CREEK CENTER LINE.
THERE IS A SPRING, UM, LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE NEAR THE HEADWATERS OF THE CREEK CENTER LINE.
[00:15:01]
TWO SPRINGS LOCATED OFFSITE, BUT, BUT WITHIN THE 150 FOOT BUFFER NORTHWEST OF THE SITE.AND THERE ARE THREE POINT RECHARGE FEATURES ON THE SITE, UM, ALSO ON THAT SAME NORTHWEST AREA AND ONE'S A LITTLE FURTHER, UM, BUT STILL I THINK ON THAT TRACT, UM, I I BELIEVE TWO OF THEM ARE ON THE SITE AND MAYBE ONE MIGHT BE IN THE BUFFER.
OKAY, SO UP IN THE FAR CORNER, LEFT CORNER IN THE NORTH NORTHWEST, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT I WANTED TO SHOW YOU KIND OF THE PROXIMITY OF WHERE IT IS TO JOLLYVILLE SALMA JOLLYVILLE PLATEAU SALAMANDER HABITAT.
SO IT'S ABOUT A MILE FROM THE SITE DOWNSTREAM OF THE SITE.
SO THIS IS A MAP THAT SHOWS, UH, THE PORTION OF THE SITE THAT CONTAINS GOLDEN SHEIK WARBLER HABITAT.
UM, THE PORTION OF THE SITE THAT IS IN THAT LIGHT YELLOW COLOR IS CONFIRMED HABITAT.
THE LIGHT GREEN AREA ON THE SITE IS UNCONFIRMED GOLDEN.
AND THEN THAT AREA IN THAT LIGHT REDDISH COLOR IS NOT KNOWN TO BE GOLDEN SHEIK WARBLER HABITAT.
AND THEN THAT DARKER GREEN COLOR THAT YOU SEE THAT'S JUST, UM, TO THE NORTHWEST OF THAT SITE THAT IS, UM, LAND THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE CAL BALCON CANYON LANDS PRESERVE.
SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THE 19.466 ACRES ON THAT NORTHWESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THIS IS THE PROP, THE PORTION OF THE SITE THAT CONTAINS THE, THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND THE MAJORITY OF THE CONFIRMED AND UNCONFIRMED GOLDEN SHEIK WARBLER HABITAT ZONE.
THIS AREA WILL BE CONVEYED TO TRAVIS COUNTY AND DEDICATED AS BAL, UH, AS BALCON CANYONLANDS PRESERVE, UM, UPON APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN.
SO THE TRAVIS COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT TO ACQUIRE THE PRESERVE TRACT ON JANUARY 10TH OF THIS YEAR.
AND THE DEDICATION OF THE TRACT WILL ENSURE THAT THIS SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AREA CONTAINING BOTH THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND THE GOLDEN CH CHIEF WARBLER HABITAT IS PROTECTED IN PERPETUITY.
THIS IS JUST A, UM, SUMMARY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED, SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND SKIP TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO FOR THE WATER EXTENSION, UM, THIS IS A MAP OF THE PROPOSED WATER EXTENSION.
THE PROPOSED WATER IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET OF 12 INCH WATER MAIN FROM THE EXISTING 12 INCH WATER MAIN LOCATED IN NORTH FM SIX 20 ROAD.
AND IT WILL EXTEND NORTH ALONG SIX 20 TO THE TRACT.
SO THERE ARE TWO, UM, WASTEWATER SERVICE OPTIONS BEING PROPOSED AND, UM, DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION, ONE ONE OF THESE WILL GO FORWARD.
UM, SO THIS IS THE FIRST PROPOSED OPTION.
UM, THIS WILL INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION OF AN UPGRADE TO THE EXISTING BOULDER LANE LIFT STATION.
UM, IT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF 2,775 FEET OF 15 INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN FROM THE EXISTING 12 INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN LOCATED IN BOULDER CREEK, I'M SORRY, MOBILE LANE
AND IT EXTENDS WEST ALONG BOULDER LANE TO THE EXISTING EIGHT INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN AND THE PROPOSED 15 INCH MAIN WILL REPLACE THAT EXISTING 12 INCH MAIN, UH, WASTE WA GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN ALONG THE PATH.
AND ALL EXISTING SERVICES WILL BE RECONNECTED TO THE NEW MAIN.
UM, THEY'RE ALSO PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT 750 FEET OF 12 INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN FROM THE PROPOSED 15 INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN IN BOULDER LANE AND EXTEND WEST ALONG BOULDER LANE TO THE EXISTING EIGHT INCH GRAVITY WASTE PORTER MAIN ALONG THIS PATH.
UM, BIG PART, UH, 4,150 FEET OF FORCE MAIN WILL ALSO BE CONSTRUCTED FOR OPTION ONE.
UM, GOING TO THE TR FROM THE TRACK AND EXTENDING EAST ACROSS THE SOUTH ALONG FM SIX 20 TO BOULDER LANE.
AND THEN IT WILL CONNECT UP TO THE PROPOSED 12 INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN.
FOR THE SECOND OPTION, IT WILL ALSO INCLUDE AN UPGRADE TO THE EXISTING BOULDER LIFT STATION AND, UM, IT'LL INCLUDE A HUNDRED FEET OF 15 INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER REMAIN, UM, WHICH WILL EXTEND NORTHWEST TO THE EXISTING GRAVITY WASTEWATER REMAIN.
AND THAT WILL UPGRADE FROM AN EIGHT INCH, UM, MAIN.
AND THEN THE 15 INCH GRAVITY, UH, WASTEWATER MAIN WILL REPLACE THE EXISTING 12 INCH MAIN ALONG THAT PATH.
AND THEN ALL SERVICES WILL BE RECONNECTED TO THE NEW MAIN.
UM, THEY'RE ALSO PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT
[00:20:01]
1025 FEET OF 12 INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN FROM THE PROPOSED 15 INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN AND EXTEND NORTHEAST ALONG BOULDER LANE NORTH TOWARDS COM, COMISO PLOP PATH, AND THEN EAST ALONG COMISO PLOP PATH TO THE EXISTING EIGHT INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN ALONG THIS PATH.UM, FROM THERE, THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO CONSTRUCT 200 FEET OF 12 INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN FROM THE EXISTING EIGHT INCH MAIN, AND THAT'S IN BAR BROOK DRIVE.
AND THAT WILL EXTEND NORTHWEST TO THE EXISTING EIGHT INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN, UH, WE'LL ALSO CONSTRUCT 750 FEET OF EIGHT INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN FROM THE PROPOSED 12 INCH GRAVITY.
WASTEWATER MAIN AND EXE EXTEND NORTHWEST TO THE HIGHEST POINT THAT CAN BE SERVED BY THE PROPOSED GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN.
THEY WILL ALSO CONSTRUCT 1,300 FEET OF FORCE MAIN FROM THE TRACT AND EXTEND NORTH ALONG SIX 20 AND THEN SOUTHEAST TO THE PROPOSED EIGHT INCH GRAVITY WASTEWATER MAIN.
SO THIS IS THE PREFERRED OPTION, UH, I BELIEVE BY THIS APPLICANT AND STAFF.
UM, BUT FOR THIS OPTION, AN EASEMENT IS REQUIRED.
SO IF THE APPLICANT IS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AN EASEMENT, THEN THEY WILL PROCEED WITH OPTION ONE FOR THE WASTEWATER SERVICE.
SO SOMETHING THAT WE ALSO DO WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE PROJECTS IS WE COMPLETE AN AL AN ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER SERVICE ANALYSIS.
AND SO FOR THIS SITE, UH, IT HAS 20% NET SITE AREA, IMPER IMPERVIOUS COVER, AND, UM, BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT THEY HAVE, WE LOOKED AT A SAS FACILITY, WHICH IS CALLED A SUBSURFACE AREA DRIP DISPERSAL SYSTEM.
AND THAT IS ISSUED AND REGULATED BY THE TCEQ OR TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
UM, IN ORDER TO PLACE, IF, IF THEY WERE NOT TO GET A WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST AND THEY WANTED TO PURSUE WITH A SAS FACILITY, THEY WOULD NEED IN ADDITION TO, UM, THE PERMIT, THEY WOULD ALSO NEED TO, UM, GET A, UM, IRRIGATION FIELD AND A STORAGE TANK.
AND THAT TAKES ABOUT 18 ACRES, UM, WHICH IS ABOUT 60% OF THE TRACT COVERAGE.
UM, THAT WOULD ALSO NEED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE NET SITE AREA, IMPERVIOUS COVER CALCULATIONS.
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY WOULD NEED A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OF A ROUGHLY, AND THEY WOULD NEED FOR THAT FOOTPRINT ABOUT 1.3 ACRES, UM, IN ORDER TO REACH THE SECONDARY TREATMENT LEVELS REQUIRED FOR THAT FACILITY.
SO BASED ON THE ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR THE SITE AND THE AMOUNT OF, UH, LAND THAT THEY WOULD NEED FOR THE EAR FOR THE IRRIGATION.
UM, AND THEN ALSO FOR THAT, UM, SECONDARY TREATMENT, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEVELOP AT THE, WITH A, TO ADD A SIMILAR DENSITY, UM, WITH THIS TYPE OF FACILITY.
UM, SIMILARLY, AN ON-SITE SEWAGE FACILITY OR OSS F WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH A SIMILAR DENSITY AS IT'S BEING CURRENTLY PROPOSED.
SO BASED ON THAT, WE CONCLUDED THAT A PROPERLY DESIGNED AND MAINTAINED CENTRALIZED WASTEWATER SERVICE OPERATED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS PREFERABLE TO AN O S S F OR SAS FACILITY.
SO BASED ON OUR ANALYSIS, WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF RR SIX 20 WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUESTS.
UM, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AT THIS TIME.
I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE HAD SOME PEOPLE SIGN UP TO SPEAK AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AS WELL.
YEAH, IF WE COULD HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
UM, AND THE, THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAKER FOR THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
SO YEAH, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, STATE YOUR NAME, UM, AND THEN GIVE US MORE INFORMATION, THAT'D BE GREAT OFF.
UH, THANK YOU KAYLA AND CHAIR BERG AND COMMISSIONERS.
UH, MICHAEL KING WITH HUTCH BLACKWELL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UH, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US TONIGHT.
UM, CAN WE GO TO SLIDE THREE PLEASE? SO JUST TO BRIEFLY RECAP, UH, THIS PROPERTY OVERALL IS ABOUT 31 AND A HALF ACRES IN SIZE.
UM, THE EXISTING USE IS RETAIL, UM, WITH, UH, UNDEVELOPED LAND AND SOME DEMOLISHED STRUCTURES.
UH, THE PROPOSED USE IS TO ADD MULTI-FAMILY, KEEP THE RETAIL, AND THEN DEDICATE, UH, ABOUT 62% OF THE PROPERTY 19 ACRES, UH, TO TRAVIS COUNTY AS PRESERVE LAND.
THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT, UH, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, UH, AND VOTED, UH, TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT TO, TO ACQUIRE THAT PRESERVED TRACT.
UH, AND THEN YOU ALSO RECEIVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BRIDGE, SHAY
[00:25:01]
AND ANNA HOWARD.UH, THIS IS, UH, AN ANNOTATED SURVEY.
IT'S JUST TO KIND OF EXPLAIN THE SITE, UH, ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN.
AND GREEN IS A PRESERVE TRACT, UH, THAT WOULD BE, UH, COME PART OF THE BALCONIES, CANYONLAND PRESERVE LAND.
AND THEN IN BLUE ON THE RIGHT, THE REDEVELOPMENT TRACT, WHICH IS 12 ACRES, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATIONS OF, KIND OF SEE THE LOCATIONS OF TWO OF THE WAREHOUSES THAT WERE RECENTLY DEMOLISHED IN OUR GREAT, UH, AREAS NOW.
AND THEN ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY, UH, THE EXISTING RETAIL, UH, AND THEN TO IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF US IS THE LOCATION OF THE PLANNED, UH, CANYON CREEK, UH, AUSTIN FIRE, AND A UMS STATION AND, UH, A P D SUBSTATION, WHICH WILL BEGIN, UH, CONSTRUCTION IN AROUND OCTOBER.
THIS IS JUST ANOTHER VIEW OF, OF THE LAYOUT, UH, OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, A RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING DESIGN.
AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT IS THAT FOR CONSIDERATION, BUT I THOUGHT I'D PROVIDE THAT TO YOU IN CASE YOU'RE INTERESTED, UH, SHOWING THE, UH, NATIVE AND ADAPTED PLANT SPECIES.
WE'LL BE PLANNING FOR THE SITE, UM, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE TRELLISING, UH, PLANTS, UM, AND PARTS OF THE BUILDING.
AND NEXT SLIDE, UH, TO PRIVATE, A LITTLE MORE DETAIL, UM, WHICH, UH, STAFF ALREADY WENT OVER.
UH, THE PRESERVE TRACT IS WHAT HAS THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, UH, AND WHICH HAS THE, UH, CONFIRMED WARBLER HABITAT, UH, UH, ZONE ONE AND AN UNCONFIRMED HABITAT ZONE TWO.
UH, IN CONTRAST, THE REDEVELOPMENT TRACT HAS NO CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES.
UH, THE REDEVELOPMENT SITE AREA IS, IS, IS VERY FLAT.
UH, IT'S PRIMARILY WARBLER ZONE THREE, WHICH MEANS NOT KNOWN TO BE HABITAT.
UM, THERE'S NO INTRUSION OF THE PLANNED BUILDING OR ANY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS INTO THE ZONE ONE HABITAT.
IT'S A VERY SMALL AREA, UH, ON THE SOUTHWEST PART OF THE TRACT THAT'S ZONE ONE ON THIS REDEVELOPMENT TRACT.
UM, AGAIN, PREVIOUSLY, UH, DEVELOPED, UM, INCLUDING FOR TWO WAREHOUSES.
AND THEN, UH, OFFSITE, JUST BARELY ONTO THE, UH, PRESERVED TRACT WAS A HOMESTEAD RESIDENCE THAT'S BEEN DEMOLISHED AS WELL.
SO A LITTLE MORE DEEP DETAILS ABOUT THE, UH, SCRS.
UM, THE WASTEWATER LINE, UH, WOULD RUN EAST AWAY FROM THE PRESERVE TRACT, UM, AND AWAY FROM THE EXISTING BALCONIES PRESERVE LAND, UH, THE WATER LINE WOULD NOT CROSS ANY CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
UH, THE WATER, THE WASTEWATER LINE WOULD RECLA REPLACE
UM, AND UH, WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THAT IT'S PART OF THE, UM, UPGRADES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE THIS PROJECT HAPPEN.
UM, THAT CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE ARE ALREADY HAPPENING AS PART OF A, A, A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, UH, THAT THE CITY IS WORKING ON THAT'S AT 96% DESIGN.
UM, AND SO WE THINK THAT THIS WORK WILL RESULT IN SOMETHING THAT'S SAFER, UM, AND MODERN AND, UM, WILL BE, UH, ACTUAL, UH, BENEFIT.
SO WE HAVE, UM, A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR MONTHS AND SOME THAT ARE HERE, UH, BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS.
UM, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE ARE INCLUDING IN OUR PLANS AS A, A POLLINATOR HABITAT GARDEN, SO A MINIMUM OF A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, UH, POTENTIALLY LARGER.
SO THESE WOULD BE ALL NATIVE PLANNINGS FOR ENDEMIC AND MIGRATORY BUTTERFLIES AND OTHER POLLINATORS, UH, WHICH AS A FORMER BEEKEEPER I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT.
UM, FOR BIRD PROTECTION, UH, WE WILL HAVE, UH, DARK SKY, UH, EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURES, SO ALL HOODED AND SHIELDED, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T AFFECT ANY MIGRATORY BIRDS.
UM, AND THE GLASS, UH, WE'RE WORKING WITH, UH, TWO OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST SUPPLIERS OF GLASS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT, UH, GLASS OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR A MULTI-FAMILY.
UM, IT'S NOT LIKE A, YOU KNOW, A HIGH-RISE DOWNTOWN.
IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF GLASS.
UM, SO LOOKING AT THAT AS AN OPTION, UM, AND IF, UH, REFLECTIVITY IS NOT THE WAY TO GO TO REDUCE BIRD STRIKES, WE WOULD LOOK AT SCREENING, UH, OR A POST-MARKET APPLICATION OF A FILM, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT BIRDS CAN RECOGNIZE GLASS.
UM, ALL OF THE ZONE ONE HABITAT WOULD BE PRESERVED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
UH, AND THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE PRIMARILY IN THE, UH, NOT KNOWN TO BE HABITAT AREA, UH, IN TERMS OF TREE PROTECTION.
WE DO HAVE, UM, SOME HERITAGE TREES ON
[00:30:01]
THE SITE.WE'LL BE PROTECTING SEVEN OUT OF EIGHT OF THOSE ON THE REDEVELOPMENT TRACT AND ALL OF THEM ON THE PRESERVE TRACT, OF COURSE.
AND MITIGATION WILL BE AT A RATIO OF, UH, THREE TO ONE OR 300% ON SITE IN TERMS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION.
UH, WE WILL BE SEEKING, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY GREEN BUILDER CERTIFICATION, UM, AND WE'LL HAVE 10% OF SPACES, PARKING SPACES WILL BE ELECTRIC VEHICLE, UH, CHARGING STATION SPOTS.
UH, WE'LL ALSO INSTALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE, SO ALL THE CONDUIT AND TRANSFORMERS, UH, TO INCREASE THAT NUMBER TO 20% AS WE TRANSITION TO, UH, ADDITIONAL ELECTRIC VEHICLES OVER THE COMING YEARS.
UM, WE'RE ALSO SEEKING TO INSTALL SOLAR PANELS.
UM, THAT'S PENDING DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR FINANCIAL PARTNER, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS FEASIBLE IN WATER CONSERVATION.
UH, WE ARE, UH, LOOKING TO INSTALL WATER, SAFE WATER SCENTS, FIXTURES.
UM, THESE ARE FOR SHOWER HEADS AND, UH, YOU KNOW, FAUCET, UM, FIXTURES.
AND THOSE WILL REDUCE, UH, WATER USAGE BY ABOUT 30% AS COMPARED TO TRADITIONAL FAUCETS ATE, UH, TO USE FOR IRRIGATION, UM, FOR OUR PLANTS.
AND THEN, UM, POTENTIALLY ALSO DOING RING WATER CAPTURE TO FEATHER OFFSET OUR WATER USAGE FOR THE PLANTINGS.
UM, NOW THE NATIVE AND ADAPTED PLANTINGS SHOULDN'T REQUIRE THAT MUCH IRRIGATION TO BEGIN WITH, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO, UM, MINIMIZE, IF NOT ELIMINATE, UM, CITY WATER USAGE FOR THAT, UH, LANDSCAPING.
AND THEN OF COURSE, UM, ALL OF THAT WILL BE NATIVE AND ADAPTED FOR THE CITY'S PREFERRED PLANT LIST.
SO, UM, WHERE ARE WE AT? OKAY, NEXT SLIDE.
UM, SO FOR, UH, WATER QUALITY, UM, WE WILL HAVE ONSITE WATER QUALITY AND TI POND, UH, TO CAPTURE IN EXCESS OF A HUNDRED GEAR FLOOD EVENT.
AND THAT WILL BE CALCULATED BASED ON THE UPDATED ATLAS 14 RAINFALL DATA.
UH, WE'LL ALSO USE PERUS MATERIALS FOR OUR FIRE LANES TO REDUCE SOME PERUS COVER.
UH, WE'LL PARTNER WITH A, A GROUP CALLED GETAROUND AS A PEER-TO-PEER, UH, CAR SHARE PROGRAM TO REDUCE, UH, AND ENCOURAGE LESS VEHICLE OWNERSHIP AND TO INCREASE ACCESS TO MOBILITY.
AND THEN, UH, THERE'S ALSO SOME, UH, OPPORTUNITIES FOR SYNCHRONICITY WITH THE PLANNED, UH, FIRE EMS, A P D STATION TO THE SOUTH, UH, IN TERMS OF, UM, SPACE FOR FIRST RESPONDERS AND CITY STAFF TO UTILIZE OUR AMENITIES, UH, IN ADDITION TO POTENTIALLY THEM TYING IN THEIR WATER AND WASTEWATER LINES TO OURS RATHER THAN HAVING TO BUILD THEIR OWN, BECAUSE THEY'RE PLANNING TO GO A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
UM, AND SO THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAVE STARTED WITH CITY STAFF, UM, AND THEN A POTENTIAL FOR AN OBSERVATION DECK, UH, ON THE WESTERN PART OF THE REDEVELOPMENT TRACT, UH, WITH A, A SCENIC VISTA VIEW.
UM, WE WOULD WANNA WORK WITH TRAVIS COUNTY WHO WILL BE MANAGING THE PRESERVED TRACT, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT'S DESIGNED IN A WAY THAT, UH, IS, UH, SENSITIVE AND, AND DONE IN A WAY THAT THEY WANT IT DONE, UM, IF THEY WANT IT DONE AT ALL.
UM, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT, UH, AMENITY.
SO, UM, AND THEN NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UM, I THINK YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN THESE LETTERS.
UM, THESE ARE JUST LETTERS OF SUPPORT, NOT JUST LETTERS OF SUPPORT.
THESE ARE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM COMMISSIONER BRIDGET SHAA, AND THEN NEXT SLIDE, UH, FROM COMMISSIONER ANN HOWARD IN WHOSE DISTRICT THIS, UH, PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
UM, AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
WE HAVE THE, THE OWNER HERE, UM, MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY THAT OWN THE PROPERTY, UH, THE DEVELOPER AND ENGINEERING TEAM AS WELL.
UM, A LOT OF, A LOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS IN THAT, AND WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT.
UM, WE'LL PROBABLY, UH, GO AROUND AND HAVE MAYBE A COUPLE YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, GO FOR IT.
QUICK QUESTION, UM, THIS IS FOR KAYLA, JUST REAL QUICK, UH, POINT OF CLARITY.
UM, I WANT TO, SO, UM, WE WOULD BE, UM, MAKING A MOTION EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THE TWO OPTIONS, RIGHT? AND THAT'S BASED ON, UM, AN EASEMENT BEING OBTAINED.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE CORRECT THAT WE, SO WOULD YOU RECOMMEND WHAT YOU, YOU WOULD BE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF BOTH WATER AND WASTEWATER IF YOU ARE RECOMMENDING BOTH, THEN ESSENTIALLY WHATEVER GOES FORWARD, WHATEVER OPTION THEY PURSUE, IT'LL BE EITHER WASH OPTION ONE OR OPTION TWO, BUT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A A, WE CAN'T REALLY WEIGH IN ON THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW, UM, IF THEY'LL HAVE THE OPTION OR, OR THE, UH, EASEMENT AT THIS POINT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I DIDN'T NEED TO PUT ANYTHING ABOUT THE OPTIONS IN THERE.
[00:35:03]
UM, REMOTE COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? YES, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER PRIMER.UH, THIS IS FOLLOWING UP ON THE, UH, THE OPTIONS, UH, WHICH I GUESS IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME HOW THE DECISION IS GONNA BE MADE ON WHICH OPTION WILL FINALLY BE SELECTED.
UM, CAN SOMEONE PLEASE, YOU KNOW, BETTER EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.
ME PLEASE? YEAH, COMMISSIONER, I, I CAN ANSWER THAT.
SO, UH, THE PREFERRED OPTION, UM, BY BOTH STAFF AND THE APPLICANT IS OPTION NUMBER TWO FOR THE WASTEWATER EXTENSION.
UM, THE, UM, ONLY REASON THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN IS IF WE DIDN'T ACQUIRE AN EASEMENT THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THAT.
UM, AND IN, IN WHICH CASE WOULD WE GO TO OPTION ONE? SO THAT'S THE ONLY DISTINCTION.
AND WHO IS IN THE, WHO GRANTS THE EASEMENT FOR OPTION TWO? UH, WE WILL BE WORKING WITH A, A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER, I BELIEVE.
AND IS THERE ANY REASON TO SUSPECT THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE AMENABLE TO THAT? UH, NOT AT THIS TIME, NO.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS HERE.
ANY, UH, QUESTIONS? YEAH, COMMISSIONER SCOTT, GO FOR IT.
I, I WENT OUT MONDAY AND, UM, UH, GOT A TOUR OF THE PROPERTY AND THE WHERE THE BUILDING SITE IS, IS, IS, UM, REMOVED FROM THE BALCON CANYON LAND AREA CONSIDERABLY.
AND, UH, DOESN'T LOOK AS IF IT WOULD HAVE ANY IMPACT AT ALL.
AND, UH, IT JUST LOOKS LIKE A, UH, EXCELLENT PLAN.
AND, UM, AND CERTAINLY GETTING THAT LAND FOR THE, UH, PRESERVE IS, IS GONNA BE, UH, A WIN FOR NOT ONLY THE, THE, UH, GOLDEN CHEEK WARBLERS, UM, BUT THE, UM, JUST GIVING, UH, ALL WILDLIFE, UH, MORE HABITAT IS, UH, AS WE, UH, BUILD UP, UM, MORE DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTIN AND, AND, UH, ANIMALS DO NEED SOMEPLACE TO, TO BE WILD IF THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE GOING DOWN MAIN STREET.
SO, UH, I WAS, I WAS REAL, UH, IMPRESSED WITH WHAT I SAW AND, AND, UH, AND, UM, THE, THE PLAN REALLY LOOKS GREAT TO ME.
I, UH, I DON'T SEE ANY, ANYTHING, UH, ABOUT THIS THAT, THAT IS, UM, A PROBLEM AT ALL.
I, I, I THINK IT'S A, I THINK IT'S A GREAT PLAN.
THANK YOU FOR VISITING THIS SITE, SAY THAT.
OTHER COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, GO FOR IT.
UH, I DO HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
FIRST OFF, I WANNA SAY, UM, THANK YOU FOR BEING SO WELL PREPARED AND, AND FOR REALLY BEING, UM, UH, UPFRONT AND ANSWERING A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT FEATURES AND STUFF THAT YOU PLAN ON HAVING.
I MEAN, THIS IS, THIS IS REALLY WONDERFUL AND I KNOW YOU'RE JUST IN STEP ONE OF, YOU KNOW, GETTING, UH, GETTING ALL THESE APPROVALS.
UM, AND I, I CERTAINLY, UM, CERTAINLY APPRECIATE HAVING, UH, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S, UH, LETTERS, UM, FOR US BECAUSE THAT, THAT REALLY HELPS US MAKE OUR DECISIONS, UM, AS IF, IF STAFF DOESN'T ALREADY DO A WONDERFUL JOB, UH, OF, OF WITH THAT.
UM, I WILL SAY, UM, I, I, UM, THE ONLY CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS ABOUT LIMITED ACCESS, UM, AND LIMITING ACCESS MM-HMM.
UM, A LOT OF TIMES THAT SCENE IS, YOU KNOW, OH, IT'S JUST PARKLAND.
UM, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT, IT SERVES A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, UM, TO SPECIFICALLY BE, UM, HABITAT FOR, UM, THE SPECIES.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED, UH, BUILDING A, A, A PLATFORM, UH, VIEWING PLATFORM, AND THAT SOUNDS EXCITING AND AWESOME.
UM, I WILL MENTION THAT, UH, JUST AS AN AVID BIRDER, UM, YOU CAN PROBABLY GET A LOT MORE BIRDS TO BE IN YOUR SITE AND, AND UP CLOSE WHERE PEOPLE CAN SEE 'EM WITH A SIMPLE WATER FEATURE IN YOUR POLLINATOR GARDEN AREA.
UM, YEAH, IT CAN BE AS, AS SIMPLE AND WONDERFUL AND BEAUTIFUL AS THAT, UM, AS LONG AS IT'S WELL DESIGNED AND, AND, UM, THAT'LL BRING 'EM IN AND MAKES IT VERY, VERY ACCESSIBLE.
UM, YOU KNOW, FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE, THAT ARE THERE IN, UM, ENJOYING YOUR, YOUR SPACE.
UM, YOU ANSWERED ALL MY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, LIGHTING AND, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU, YOU JUST SOUND LIKE YOU HOPEFULLY, UM, WILL, WILL HAVE A GOOD PLAN AND CAN DO ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU HOPE TO DO.
SO, UM, WITH THAT, THAT WAS MY ONLY, UM, COMMENT AND, UM, UH, ESPECIALLY ABOUT LIMITING THE ACCESS TO THE PRESERVES.
THANK YOU FOR THAT INSIGHT AND RECOMMENDATION.
[00:40:01]
CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY, JUST SO YOU KNOW, IT DOES REQUIRE, UM, THE ACCESS TO BE LIMITED TO COUNTY STAFF AND THEIR INVITEES.AND SO, UM, THAT IS, UM, UNDER, THEY'RE VERY PROTECTIVE OF THAT BELK COUNTY'S LAND, UH, TO MAKE SURE IT SERVES ITS INTENDED PURPOSE.
ANYBODY GOT ANY FINAL QUESTIONS? OH, SURE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, UM, AND FOR ALL THE GREAT ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO ADD TO THE PROJECT.
UM, MY QUESTION IS FOR KAYLA, UM, AND OR CITY STAFF, THIS IS A, A GENERAL QUESTION AND IT ACTUALLY WAS APPLICABLE TO THE, UM, THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION AS WELL.
I, MY QUESTION IS, I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW MUCH, UM, IT LIKE, GETS FACTORED IN IF THE LOCATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS, IS NOT IN THAT IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR, UM, THAT IS, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE, UM, WHERE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS BEING, YOU KNOW, INCENTIVIZED OR PLANNED.
SO I KNOW, CUZ I KNOW YOU GUYS SHOW IT REGULARLY, AND THEN I'M JUST LIKE, HOW MUCH DOES ON THE CITY STAFF SIDE DOES THAT GO INTO TO WEIGHING, UM, HI LIZ JOHNSTON, DEPUTY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER.
I'LL TRY TO TAKE A STAB AT THAT.
SO THE IMAGINE AUSTIN, OF COURSE SHOWS WHERE, UM, MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT IS PLANNED AND WHERE GROWTH IS TRYING TO BE, UM, UH, UH, ENCOURAGED.
AND SO IF THERE WERE TO BE AN S E R IN AN AREA THAT, UM, WAS NOT ON THE IMAGINE AUSTIN CORRIDOR AND WOULD BE EXTENDING AND MAYBE, UM, PRO PROPOSING DEVELOPMENT AND AN AREA THAT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE DENSE, MORE DENSELY DEVELOPED, I THINK WE WOULD, WE WOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION FOR SURE.
MOTION TO, UH, MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'M NOT GONNA THAT THANK YOU VERY QUICKLY.
AM ON, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? SURE.
SHE, WERE YOU VOTING IN FOR, IN, IN FAVOR OF, UH, A MOTION.
I I APPRECIATE THAT ENTHUSIASM.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF, UH, MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, RAISE YOUR HAND LIKE SHERRA.
UH, SO, UH, PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, MA'AM? WE DO JANUARY 18TH, 2023.
UH, ALEXA RANCH ROAD SIX 20, WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST, UH, NUMBER 5 5 32 AND 5 5 33.
I'M GETTING SOME FEEDBACK HERE.
UM, LOCATION, UH, IS, UM, 9,900 NORTH FM SIX 20, AND, UH, THE APPLICANT IS, UH, KING AND HIRSCH BLACKWELL, WHEREAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THAT THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST IS LOCATED IN THE LAKE TRAVIS WATERSHED WATER SUPPLY RULE, EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE.
AND WHERE IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THAT WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT STAFF HAVE COMPLETED THE REVIEW AND RECOMMEND THE WA THE WATER AND WASTE WATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST.
THEREFORE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ABOVE NOTED SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST, SECOND BY BERG.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION BEFORE US RAISE YOUR HAND.
[4. Name: Evergreen Drainage Improvements, SP-2022-0056D (30 minutes)]
ALL RIGHT, WE'RE MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS THE EVERGREEN DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT, S P 20 2022 DASH 0 0 56 D, UM, AT 1800 AND A HALF EVERGREEN AVENUE, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78 704.AND WE'VE GOT A STAFF PRESENTATION.
I'M AN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST SENIOR IN THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, AND I AM THE WETLAND BIOLOGIST REVIEWER AND E R M OR FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION REVIEWER FOR THIS CASE.
[00:45:01]
I'M GONNA BE PRESENTING ON TWO DIFFERENT VARIANCES FOR THIS PROPERTY.SO THE PROJECT IS CALLED EVERGREEN DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.
IT'S LOCATED AT 1800 AND A HALF EVERGREEN AVENUE, 78,704, AND THE CASE NUMBER IS S P 20 22 0 5 60.
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN SOUTH AUSTIN, UH, JUST SOUTH OF THE COLORADO RIVER.
UM, THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE WEST BOLD CREEK WATERSHED, CLASSIFIED URBAN, AND IT IS ALSO LOCATED IN THE DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE AND COUNCIL DISTRICT NINE.
THIS SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST MARY STREET AND EVERGREEN AVENUE AND SOUTH LAMAR BOULEVARD IS ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THIS SITE.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS AERIAL, THE SITE IS LARGELY UNDEVELOPED AN A LARGELY UNDEVELOPED ATTRACTIVE LAND WITH A NATURALLY LINED DRAINAGE CREEK ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE WITH A CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, A WETLAND CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE OR C E F ALONG THE CREEK.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A RIM ROCK, C E F ACROSS EVERGREEN AVENUE.
UM, ON THE WESTERN SIDE, THE WATER, UM, FROM THE ONSITE CREEK OUTFALLS VIA AN UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE PIPE THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE ON THIS IMAGE AND THAT EXTENDS NORTH UNDERNEATH EVERGREEN AVENUE.
THE WATER FROM THE ONSIDE CREEK DOES NOT JUST CHARGE ACROSS EVERGREEN AVENUE IN THE CREEK THAT CONTAINS THE RIMAC C E F.
SO THE RIMAC C E F IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE STORMWATER OUTFALL OR RUNOFF.
THERE ARE TWO VARIANTS REQUESTS FOR THIS PROJECT.
THE FIRST IS THE REQUEST TO VARY FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 25 8 2 61 G, UH, FOR FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION PROPOSED WITHIN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
AND THE SECOND VARIANCE IS 2 25 8 281 C ONE A TO REDUCE THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE OR C E F SETBACK TO 50 FEET AND 25 8 2 81 C TO B TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE REDUCED 50 FOOT C E F SETBACK.
SO I'LL DISCUSS THE VARIANCE REQUEST REGARDING THE FLOOD PLAIN MODIFICATION IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
FIRST, THERE IS VERY LIMITED INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT REGARDING THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE AND THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLANE ON THE PLAN SHEET PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE STANDARD 150 FOOT C E F SETBACK IS OUTLINED IN RED, THE 50 FOOT OR ORIGINAL CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE SETBACK AND 50 FOOT REDUCED PROPOSED REDUCED C E F SETBACK IS OUTLINED IN DARK BLUE.
AND THEN THE APPLICANT CONDUCTED FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION, SORRY, NOT FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION, FLOODPLAIN MODELING TO DETERMINE THE EXISTING CRITICAL THE EXISTING CITY OF AUSTIN 100 YEAR FULLY DEVELOPED FLOODPLAIN.
AND THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN LIGHT BLUE.
AND THE PROPOSED 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ON THIS SLIDE.
SO THE HATCHED AREA AND PURPLE IS THE APPROXIMATE AREA OF FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
THE AREA OF FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION INCLUDES BOTH WHERE THE EXISTING 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN IS BEING REDUCED DOWN TO THE PROPOSED 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND ALSO THE AREA OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING WITHIN THE CREEK CHANNEL ITSELF.
SO THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION IS PROHIBITED IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE UNLESS ONE OF THE EXEMPTIONS IS MET.
AND DUE TO THE LIMITED INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED, IT CANNOT BE DETERMINED IF THE PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION FOR THIS CASE MEETS ONE OF THE THREE EXEMPTIONS.
THUS THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR THIS VARIANCE TO 25 8 2 61
THE FLOODPLAIN HEALTH IS MEASURED BY A FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FLOODPLAIN HEALTH OR F A F H, UM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPENDIX X WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA
[00:50:01]
MANUAL OR ECM.THE FLOODPLAIN ASSESSED AS THE CITY OF AUSTIN 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, AND THE CONSULTANT CONDUCTED A ZONE TWO F A F H AND THE SAMPLE PLOTS RATED THE FLOODPLAIN IN FAIR CONDITION.
UH, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SCORES HAVE FOUR RATINGS RANGING FROM EXCELLENT, GOOD, FAIR TO POOR.
HOWEVER, IT'S UNCLEAR IF THE FLOODPLAIN IS ACTUALLY THE FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION IS RELEGATED TO THE TOP OF THE BANKS OF THE CHANNEL.
AND SO IT APPEARS THAT IT ACTUALLY INCLUDES THE CHANNEL ITSELF AS WELL AS WELL, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A ZONE THREE F A F H FOR THE ACTIVE CHANNEL ITSELF.
AND THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN PROVIDED FOR FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION, EITHER FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION ONSITE OR OFFSITE MITIGATION IS REQUIRED.
AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS FLOODPLAIN HEALTH OR F A F H SCORES IS THAT IT HELPS US DETERMINE THE RESTORATION AND MITIGATION RATIOS THAT ARE REQUIRED.
SO THE APPLICATION DID NOT PROVIDE A PROPOSED RESTORATION OR MITIGATION PLAN FOR FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION IMPACTS.
AND WITHOUT DEFINITIVE INFORMATION ON THE SPECIFIC MEETS AND BOUNDS OF PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION, PROPOSED RESTORATION AND OR MITIGATION, IT CANNOT BE DETERMINED IF THE PLAN WILL MEET THE RESTORATION RATIOS IN E ECM 1.7 0.5 OR THE MITIGATION RATIOS IN ECM 1.7 0.6.
THE SECOND VARIANCE REQUEST IS REGARDING C F SETBACK REDUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE C F SETBACK.
LIMITED INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT REGARDING ONE-TO-ONE MITIGATION NEEDED FOR THIS ON THE ORIGINAL PLAN SET PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, YOU CAN SEE THE STANDARD 150 FOOT SETBACK AGAIN OUTLINED IN RED.
AND THE, UH, THE ORIGINAL 50 FOOT CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE SETBACK AND PROPOSED REDUCED 50 FOOT C E F SETBACK IS OUTLINED IN DARK BLUE AGAIN HERE, THE AREA OF C E F SETBACK REDUCTION FROM 150 FEET DOWN TO 50 FEET IS HATCHED IN GREEN ON THIS SLIDE.
AND THEN THE AREA OF C E F SETBACK, ENCROACHMENT OR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE PROPOSED REDUCED 50 FOOT C E F SETBACK IS HATCHED IN ORANGE.
ALL C E F SETBACK REDUCTION AND ENCROACHMENT WITHIN THE STANDARD 150 FOOT C F SETBACK IS PROHIBITED UNLESS ONE TO ONE MITIGATION IN KIND PURSUANT TO ECM ONE POINT 10.4 IS PROVIDED.
SO BOTH OF THE AREAS IN GREEN AND IN ORANGE ON THIS SLIDE WOULD BE CONSIDERED IMPACTS TO THE STANDARD 150 FOOT C F SETBACK AND HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR WITH ONE-TO-ONE MITIGATION.
SO TYPICALLY WETLAND C F MITIGATION CAN BE WORKED OUT ADMINISTRATIVELY BY PROVIDING ONSITE ONE-TO-ONE IN-KIND MITIGATION PURSUANT TO THAT CODE CITATION.
I JUST SAID EARLIER, ECM ONE POINT 10.4, AND IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A FORMAL VARIANCE.
IN THIS CASE, THE PROJECT PROPOSES WETLAND C F SETBACK REDUCTION TWO 50 FEET, WHICH COULD BE PROCESSED ADMINISTRATIVELY BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE ON-SITE ONE-TO-ONE MITIGATION AND WOULD NOT REQUIRE A FORMAL VARIANCE.
IT APPEARS THAT IN THE WITHDRAWN AND RESUBMIT PLAN S P 20 20,000 1 14 8 D, THE APPLICANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH A ONE-TO-ONE MITIGATION STRATEGY.
HOWEVER, THAT HAD NOT YET BEEN AGREED UPON AND THIS MITIGATION PLAN WAS NOT REVISED IN THE SUBMITTABLE FOR THIS SITE PLAN FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.
UM, ON THE PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN C YOU SEE HERE ON THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE 50 FOOT CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE AND PROPOSED REDUCED 50 FOOT CF SETBACK AGAIN IN DARK BLUE.
AND THEN THEIR PROPOSED MITIGATION AREA IS HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN.
AND SOME DETAILS FOR THE PROPOSED PLANTING WERE PROVIDED FOR THE MITIGATION AREA.
HOWEVER, THE CURRENT SUBMITTED PLAN DOES NOT INDICATE HOW THE PROJECT SITE WOULD BE DEVELOPED BEYOND THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE IMPACTS AND THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLANE IMPACTS.
AND THIS PROPOSED IMPACT TO THE WETLAND C E F SETBACK AREA.
SO THE WETLAND, THE ONE-TO-ONE MITIGATION CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WITHOUT A CLEAR PLAN SHOWING DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE AREA AVAILABLE FOR VARIOUS OPTIONS TO ACHIEVE ONE-TO-ONE IN-KIND MITIGATION.
AND ADDITIONALLY, WITHOUT HAVING A FULLY DEVELOPED SITE PLAN, IT'S UNCLEAR WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ENOUGH AREA ONSITE FOR BOTH THE ONE-TO-ONE MITIGATION FOR THE C E F WETLAND AND TO
[00:55:01]
PROVIDE SOME AREA FOR THE FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION RESTORATION AND OR MITIGATION PLAN ON SITE.SO IN UH, NEXT SLIDE, SORRY,
UM, IN SUMMARY, THERE ARE A FEW MAJOR APPLICATION DEFICIENCIES IMPACTING STAFF'S DETERMINATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT.
THE APPLICATION PROVIDED LIMITED INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE AND THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLANE AND THE ASSOCIATED IMPACTS TO THE WETLANDS CFS.
THE APPLICATION DID NOT PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION ON HOW THE REMAINDER OF THE PROJECT SITE WOULD BE DEVELOPED, AND THIS IMPACTS THE ABILITY TO FULLY, UM, EVALUATE ANY OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT WITHOUT A FULLY DEVELOPED SITE PLAN.
IT'S UNCLEAR WHY THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, AND THE APPLICATION DOES NOT HAVE AN APPROVED FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION RESTORATION AND MITIGATION PLAN.
THE APPLICATION DOES NOT HAVE AN APPROVED WETLAND C F MITIGATION PLAN, AND THE LACK OF THESE APPROVED PLANS IMPACTS THE ABILITY TO FULLY EVALUATE THE HARMFUL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, THE WATER QUALITY AND THE MINIMUM DEVIATION FROM CODE.
STAFF DETERMINES THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT HAVE NOT BEEN MET VARIANCES HAVE NOT BEEN GRANTED FOR SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES WITH SIMILAR CODE REQUIREMENTS.
BECAUSE THERE IS NO SITE PLAN OR CF MITIGATION PLAN OR RESTORATION PLAN FOR FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION, THIS REVIEWER IS UNABLE TO DETERMINE THAT THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS NECESSITATED BY TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES, NOT.
DESIGN CHOICE IS THE MINIMUM DEVIATION FROM CODE IS UNLIKELY TO RESULT IN HARMFUL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE THERE'S NO SITE PLAN, RESTORATION PLAN OR C E F MITIGATION PLAN.
THIS REVIEWER CANNOT DETERMINE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE VARIANCE WILL RESULT IN WATER QUALITY THAT WILL BE EQUAL TO OR OR BETTER THAN THE WATER QUALITY WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AFTER THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION IS COMPLETE.
UM, YEAH, THE APPLICANT'S HERE AS WELL.
UM, AND YOU GUYS PROVIDED SOME CARDS, WOULDN'T, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ARE, ARE YOU GONNA BE THE PRIMARY SPEAKER FOR THESE? YOU MAY NEED TO HIT, THERE'S A BUTTON ON YOUR, UH, NO, NO ON THE MICROPHONE.
UH, UH, UH, TO HIT THAT GREEN LIGHT.
WHEN YOU MOVE TO DENTON, YOU KIND OF START FORGETTING THE TECHNOLOGY STUFF.
SO, UH, I WANNA INTRODUCE, UH, ROBERT EASTER, WHO'S THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER, AND RICK THOMPSON, WHO'S THE CIVIL ENGINEER ON THIS PROJECT.
AND THEY'RE GONNA, UH, BE RESOURCE WITNESSES FOR Y'ALL IF YOU HAVE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS CUZ I'M JUST A DUMB LAWYER.
SO, UH, WITH THAT I'M GONNA DEFER MY COMMENTS REGARDING, UH, THE STAFF'S INABILITY TO, TO, UH, MAKE ANY ASSESSMENTS, UH, ON THIS APPLICATION UNTIL THE END.
CUZ I DON'T WANT TO WASTE TIME ON THAT.
I WANT TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE, THE MERITS OF WHAT WE'RE IT'S BEING PROPOSED.
AND I HOPE THAT YOU HAVE MY PRESENTATION THAT I EMAILED OUT THIS MORNING TO EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COMMISSION AND, AND TO MIRANDA TO STAFF.
THE APPLICANT INSTRUCTIONS SAY THAT ANY, I DID NOT RECEIVE A PRESENTATION, BUT THE DEADLINE WAS TUESDAY NOON AND, UM, I APOLOGIZE, I HAVEN'T, IT WAS NOT WELL EACH COMMISSIONER THEN.
OKAY, THAT'S FINE BECAUSE I WAS STILL VISITING WITH COMMISSIONERS ON TUESDAY AND, AND, AND DEVELOPING THE RESPONSE.
UH, BUT WE'LL GO IN FOR, DO SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE THE, UM, THE DOCUMENTS THAT I FORWARDED TO YOU? OKAY, WELL, UH, GO, GO PAST THE VERY BORING FIRST PAGE CUZ I JUST TYPED THAT THAT'S NOT VERY, UH, VERY IMPRESSIVE.
BUT THE SECOND PAGE IS THE ORIGINAL PLAT FROM THE 1890S OF EVERGREEN HEIGHTS.
HEIGHTS AND LOT 14 IS COLORED IN YELLOW.
I SUBMITTED A, A CLEANER COPY IN, IN THE UPDATE I SENT OUT, UH, EARLIER IN THE WEEK TO TO ALL OF Y'ALL.
UH, AND THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS A THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE, IS ESSENTIALLY THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF TRACK 14.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A CREEK INDICATED ON THIS PLAT RECORDED IN THE 1890S.
UH, WHEN YOU TURN THE PAGE, YOU'RE GONNA GO 120 YEARS INTO THE FUTURE CUZ THAT'S, IF YOU CAN SEE THIS, UH, THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY.
[01:00:01]
IN FACT, I HOPE CUZ I, I REALLY FIND THE SCREENS HERE TO BE, UH, VERY VISIBLE IN TERMS OF, UH, LOOKING AT COLORS.SO IF YOU HAVE SEEN THIS OR YOU CAN SEE IT NOW, YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE'S A BLUE LINE CROSSING SOUTH LAMAR, WHICH WE ALL KNOW IS A TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
AND THIS IS AN AREA WHERE THE CITY IS ENCOURAGING DENSE DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
THE BLUE LINE, UH, IS, UH, IS WHAT'S UPSTREAM OF THIS PROPERTY IS A DRAINAGE BASIN.
IT'S 77 ACRES ALL IN ENCLOSED STORM SEWER.
THE FIRST TIME THIS, THAT DRAINAGE AREA DAYLIGHTS IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH LAMAR.
AND IT CROSSES, UH, THAT PROPERTY IN ABOUT A 10 FOOT WIDE DIRT CHANNEL.
AND THEN IT UNLEASHES ONTO THIS PROPERTY.
AND THEN THE, ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO, THE CITY, INSTEAD OF THE OUTFALL GOING, UM, STRAIGHT ACROSS BUILT, UH, THE, UH, AN EVERGREEN DRAINAGE CULVERT, THEY SIZED IT SMALLER THAN THE TECH STOCK, UH, CULVERTS, NOT SURE WHY THEY DID THAT, BUT THAT, UH, THEY TOOK AN OPEN CHANNEL AND CLOSED IT, RAN IT 500 FEET UP AND THEN TOOK IT TO UH, UH, WEST BOLD CREEK.
SO THIS IS THE LAST UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY.
THIS IS NOT A MOSTLY UNDEVELOPED, THIS PROPERTY HAS NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED SINCE THE PLATT IN 120 YEARS, BUT IT HAS RECEIVED THE EXTERNALITIES OF THE ADJOINING DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS AUSTIN PIZZA.
THEY PUT PHIL TO LEVEL THEIR LOT WITH, UH, MARY STREET.
AND THAT HAS CREATED A WALL, AN EMBANKMENT, IF YOU WILL, THAT ESSENTIALLY PUSHES THIS WATERWAY EXCLUSIVELY ONTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UH, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FACILITY ON THIS BLOCK.
WE ARE PROPOSING A RETENTION, UH, BIO RETENTION POND, UH, TO TREAT.
IT'LL BE, UM, THE FIRST WATER QUALITY FACILITY ON THIS BLOCK.
AND I DARE SAY THAT UPSTREAM THERE'S PROBABLY VERY FEW WATER QUALITY TREATMENT.
SO WE'RE GETTING VERY DIRTY WATER DUMPED ONTO THIS PROPERTY, WHICH THEN IMMEDIATELY GOES INTO ANOTHER ENCLOSED STORM SEWER THAT THAT'S UNTREATED.
I ALSO WANNA POINT OUT THAT THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY TO THE EAST AND ACROSS FROM EVERGREEN IS IN 2021, WAS REZONED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, PUT AN MU OVERLAY TO CONTINUE, UH, EXPRESSING THEIR POLICY OF URGING DENSE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA.
THIS, AS YOU'VE SEEN FROM THE MATERIALS, THIS PROPERTY WAS ZONED.
UH, UH, CS M U UH, IS THERE A TIMER UP HERE? CAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE I AM.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES REMAINING.
I MEAN, I HAVE NO, THERE'S NO LIMIT OR I HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES REMAINING.
GO FOR FIVE MINUTES AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHERE WE ARE.
SO BEFORE MY CLIENT BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 2002 TO GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, THIS WAS A CONCEPTUAL, UH, PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE, UH, CITY STAFF IN 2001 OF A LIVE WORK MIXED USE PROJECT ON THIS VERY PROPERTY.
IT WENT THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT.
UH, NOW IN THIS PARTICULAR PLAN, THEY ENCLOSED THE, THE, THE WATERWAY INTO A, AN ENCLOSED STORM SEWER.
UH, AND, AND, AND SO THE CONCEPT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND MIXED USE ON THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN BEFORE THE COUNCIL APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL FOR OVER 20 YEARS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY STAFF ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS OVER THE YEARS.
THERE'S NO SURPRISE HERE'S WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT'S GOING TO BE.
UH, IN 2003, THE CITY APPROACHED, UH, THE, UH, MR. EASTER WANTING TO BUY THE PROPERTY.
HE GAVE THEM A COPY OF THE, UH, SITE PLAN, THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT WAS PREPARED IN 2001.
UH, THEY ASSESSED THAT OTHER THAN ENCLOSING THE, THE WATERWAY THAT IT WAS A VIABLE PROJECT AND THAT IT WAS STANDARD IN 2003 TO OBTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION AND URBAN WATERSHEDS.
IF YOU'LL TURN TO THE NEXT, UM, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THIS, I APOLOGIZE.
SO WHAT, UH, THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND CUZ OF MARKET CHANGES PROBABLY BE SOLELY RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY OR CONDO.
AND SO THIS IS A CORRIDOR WHERE THE CITY WANTS ADDITIONAL HOUSING.
THE, UH, APPLICANT IS COMMITTING, WILLING TO COMMIT TO, UH, SETTING ASIDE OR DESIGNATING 10% OF THE DWELLING UNITS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UH, IS, WAS SHOWN, UH, IN MIRANDA'S EXHIBIT.
THE FLOODPLAIN CURRENTLY SPILLS OVER THIS PROPERTY AND IT SPILLS INTO EVERGREEN.
IT SPILLS TO THE NORTH, IT SPILLS TO THE SOUTH.
THIS IS AN UNCONTAINED NON-FUNCTIONING SEGMENT OF DRAINAGE.
THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WILL ACTUALLY CONTAIN AND MAKE THIS DRAINAGE AREA FUNCTION BETTER AND TAKE EVERGREEN AND THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES OUT OF THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
ONSITE RESTORATION INCLUDES A TRAIL AND BENCHES, UH,
[01:05:01]
OF COURSE, UH, WILL PAY THE, THE CLIENT APPLICANT WILL PAY THE, UH, SIX TIMES FEE MITIGATION FEE, WHICH I THINK IS $38,000 AN ACRE BASED ON THE AREA OF CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE DISTURBED, UH, HE'S COMMITTING TO INSTALL, UH, IN, UH, 15, UH, THAT 15% OF THE BIKE SPACES AND 15% OF THE CAR SPACES WILL HAVE EV CHARGING STATIONS, UH, PUT SOLAR PANELS ON THE ROOF AND OF COURSE BY OUR RETENTION POND FOR WATER QUALITY TREATMENT.NOW I'M GONNA SKIP THE NEXT ONE CAUSE I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN THAT THE, THE, THE C E F UH, UH, THE, THE WETLANDS IS THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE CRETE.
IF YOU HAVE THE PHOTO, GO TO THE NEXT PAGE AND YOU CAN SEE THE RED BUILDING AND THE BLUE BUILDING.
RED BUILDING IS THE BACK OF AUSTIN PIZZA, THE BLUE BUILDING, WHICH SITS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE, WHICH IS ADJACENT PROPERTY.
AND THEY HAVE THE BENEFIT OF DEVELOPMENT, UH, UH, OR ARE ARE THERE, BUT THIS PROPERTY REMAINS UNDEVELOPED.
THE NEXT PAGE IS THE, UH, THE, UH, THE MITIGATION AND RIP RIPARIAN RESTORATION PLAN THAT'S BEEN BEFORE THE CITY, PROBABLY FOR STAFF FOR THREE YEARS.
I CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY THEY DON'T HAVE NOT SEEN THIS.
UH, THIS, WE ARE NOW ON OUR SIXTH YEAR OF APPLICATIONS AND GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, IT, IT'S PRETTY ASTOUNDING AT THIS POINT TO HEAR, UM, STAFF SAYING THERE'S NO INFORMATION BEEN PROVIDED TO THEM.
THE NEXT PHOTO IS A SHOT FROM EVERGREEN.
AND WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS THE PROPERTY IS PRETTY LEVEL UNTIL YOU GO TOWARD, UH, THE SOUTH IN THE AUSTIN PIZZA OR, UH, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PROPERTY IS EQUAL TO OR HIGHER THAN THE CURB.
EVERYTHING YOU SEE IN THIS PHOTO IS VIRTUALLY IN THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
THIS IS WHY IT'S SPILLING OVER BECAUSE IT'S NOT PROPERLY CONTAINED.
AND SO YOU HAVE A FLOOD HAZARD THAT IT'S SPILLING OUT INTO PUBLIC STREETS ONTO OTHER PROPERTIES.
AND SO ONE OF THE MAJOR BENEFITS IS ENHANCING THE, UH, THE DRAINAGE FUNCTIONALITY IN THAT AREA AND REDUCING FLOODING.
UH, THE NEXT PAGE IS A CROSS-SECTION, THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF THE FLOOD PLAIN.
THIS HAS BEEN FOR STAFF FOR YEARS, UH, AND IT SHOWS THAT THERE'S A PRETTY MINIMAL CHANGE, AND IT'S BEEN VERY CLEARLY COMMUNICATED TO STAFF MANY TIMES THAT THE BOTTOM OF THE CREEK WILL NOT BE DISTURBED DURING THIS CONSTRUCTION.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHY THERE'S CONFUSION ON THAT POINT.
UH, FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, I HAVE INCLUDED THE COMMENTS THAT WE HAD UNDER THE PRIOR APPLICATION THAT WERE ISSUED IN MAY OF 2021, WHICH SHOWED VIRTUALLY ALL THE COMMENTS EXCEPT FOR, UH, EXCEPT FOR THOSE RELATED TO THE VARIANCES AND, AND THE RIPARIAN RESTORATION HAD BEEN CLEARED.
WE DID A WITHDRAWAL AND RESUBMITTAL IN LAST YEAR.
AND THAT BRINGS FORWARD ALL THOSE COMMENTS.
THIS HAS BEEN VERY THOROUGHLY REVIEWED OVER TIME.
SO LET ME CLOSE BY, UH, EMPHASIZING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DECIDES WHAT THE REASONABLE USE OF PROPERTY IS, AND THAT'S WHAT'S CALLED ZONING.
AND SO THE COUNCIL HAS DECIDED THAT THE PROPER ECONOMIC USE AND REASONABLE USE FOR THIS PROPERTY IS A MIXED USE.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
I THINK I SKIPPED OVER THE COLORED, UH, SITE PLAN.
I WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT IF YOU GO TO THE PAGE THAT HAS THE YELLOW, THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT EXHIBIT.
SO THERE'S AN EXISTING SEWER LINE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED WHERE WE THINK THE CREEK USED TO BE.
WE'RE NOT REALLY SURE THAT HAS TO BE RELOCATED.
SO WHEN YOU START, EVEN WHEN YOU LIMIT THE, THE FLOODPLAIN TO 50 FEET, THEN YOU HAVE TO SET BACK FROM THE WEST BECAUSE SOME TREES AND THE DRAIN AND THE WASTEWATER EASEMENT, YOU HAVE TO COME BACK FROM THE NORTH BECAUSE OF THE SEWER EASEMENT THAT BY THE TIME YOU LOOK AT THIS AND YOU LOOK AT THE PURPLE BOX, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 9,600 FEET.
THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE BUILDING ENVELOPE ON THIS PROPERTY FROM THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE.
SO IT, IT IS AN AREA THAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO SEE DEVELOPED.
I THINK THAT WE CERTAINLY HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT EVERYBODY ELSE AROUND THERE HAS HAD THEIR, THEIR CHANCE TO DEVELOP AND, AND HAVE DONE THAT AT THE COST OF THIS PROPERTY.
UH, AND THAT, UH, THAT ARE THE PROPOSED, UH, MULTI-FAMILY, UH, PROJECT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTS HERE.
AND, AND I, AND I ASK FOR YOUR, AS CITIZENS TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE FORESIGHT TO SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES AND TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES HERE RATHER THAN WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ENOUGH TREES PLANTED IN, IN, IN THE RESTORATION PLANT OR NOT, BUT THAT THERE ARE FLOODING ISSUES IN THEIR HOUSING ISSUES THAT ALSO HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED.
AND I, AND I THINK THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT COMMUNITY BENEFITS TO JUSTIFY YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
[01:10:01]
YOU CANNOT RECOMMEND, WE DO ASK THAT YOU TAKE ACTION BECAUSE FRANKLY, SIX YEARS OF SWIRLING AROUND THE, THE, UH, DRAIN IS GETTING A LITTLE FATIGUING AND WE'D LIKE JUST TO MOVE ON.UH, SO, UH, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
UH, WE'LL START, BUT LET, LET, LET'S START REMOTE AND JUST SEE IF, UH, THAT, THAT ADDRESSES SOME QUESTIONS THAT THE REST OF US MAY HAVE AS WELL.
UM, AND THEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE UP AFTER THAT, SCOTT? UH, YEAH.
COMMISSIONER, SHERIFF, PLEASE.
I GUESS I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK ABOUT, UM, THE DISCREPANCY THAT WE ARE HEARING ABOUT A SITE PLAN BEING SUBMITTED OR NOT SUBMITTED.
WHERE, WHERE IS THAT DISCREPANCY? OKAY, SO THANK YOU FOR ASKING.
SO INITIALLY, THE FIRST APPLICATION ON THIS PROPERTY TO ADDRESS THE, THE FLOOD PLAIN SITUATION WAS SUBMITTED IN 2016 AS A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION.
AND, UH, I THINK WE WENT THROUGH TWO SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS TO, TO GET APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE FLOODPLAIN.
AND THEN STAFF SAID, NO, YOU CAN'T DO IT THROUGH A SUBDIVISION.
YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN.
SO WE SUBMITTED A D SITE PLAN FOR, FOR THE FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION, UH, AND THAT WAS BEING PROCESSED THROUGH.
AND THEN STAFF SAID, NO, NOW YOU NEED A CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN, BECAUSE WE CAN'T DECIDE ANYTHING ABOUT ANY ASPECT OF THIS VARIANCE UNLESS YOU SHOW US A COMPLETE SET OF, OF, OF A CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN APPLICATION.
AND THIS IS FIVE YEARS IN INTO BEING REVIEWED.
AND, AND FRANKLY, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S PATENTLY UNREASONABLE.
AND THE LAST THING I PUT IN THE DOCUMENTS I SENT TO YOU TODAY IS A VARIANCE REQUEST Y'ALL APPROVED IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR WITH A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION WITH NO SITE PLAN OR ANYTHING ELSE AS TO WHAT THE PROJECT WAS.
AND SO, I DON'T KNOW WHY STAFF IS IMPOSING A, A CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN BEFORE THEY CAN DO ANY ANALYSIS ON, ON A PROJECT THEY'VE BEEN LOOKING AT FOR SIX YEARS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AND THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO MOVE ON.
SHERA, LET ME JUMP IN HERE REAL QUICK.
UM, STAFF, DO YOU GUYS HAVE, UH, SOME PERSPECTIVE ON, ON I GUESS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUBDIVISION SITE D AND, AND CONSOLIDATED, SO WE CAN ALL HEAR, HEAR THAT AS WELL, RIGHT.
LIZ JOHNSTON, DEPUTY ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER.
SO PART OF THE ISSUE IS THERE IS OF COURSE, A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLANE ON THE PROPERTY AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO ACCESS THE SITE.
MR. THOMPSON WILL, UH, FILL IN IF I SAY SOMETHING WRONG.
UM, SO BEFORE THE SUBDIVISION, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SHOW HOPEFULLY THAT THEY HAVE SAFE ACCESS AND THAT, UM, THE LOCATION OF WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN IS SO THAT THERE CAN BE AN EASEMENT DEDICATED.
UM, AND SO IT'S A BIT OF A CHICKEN OVER THE, OR THE EGG THING.
SO THIS SHOWED THAT THE FLOODPLAIN WAS ALMOST THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
UM, AND SO THE APPLICANT THEN KNEW THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE AND SO WANTED TO DO A FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION.
UM, THE DETAILS NECESSARY FOR THAT FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION, UM, ARE NOT, UH, DO NOT LEND THEMSELVES TO A SUBDIVISION REVIEW.
AND SO THE, THE SITE PLAN THEN WAS SUBMITTED, BUT THERE WAS NO PROJECT PROPOSED
AND SO WE NEED A PROJECT TO UNDERSTAND IS IT THE MINIMUM DEPARTURE? ARE YOU MODIFYING THE FLOOD PLAIN TO MAXIMIZE DEVELOPMENT? WHERE ARE THE TREES THAT ARE BEING PRE PRESERVED, WHERE THE EROSION CONTROLS, WHAT KIND OF WATER QUALITY TREATMENT ARE YOU GOING TO PROVIDE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
AND SO WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION, UM, THEY DON'T MEET THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
AND SO I THINK THE, THE PROCESS WOULD BE SUBMIT THE C SITE PLAN AND HAVE A SUBDIVISION REVIEWED CONCURRENTLY SUCH THAT ONCE THE SITE PLAN IS VARIANCES ARE, ARE APPROVED, THEN THE SUBDIVISION GETS PLATTED AND THEN, UH, AND SO FORTH.
SO THE, THERE IS A, A PROCESS TO, TO DO THAT.
IT, UM, IT'S JUST THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT WANNA FOLLOW THAT PROCESS.
MY NAME'S ROBERT THOMPSON OR RICK THOMPSON.
I'M A THOMPSON LAND ENGINEERING.
UM, Y YEAH, LIZ SAID IT PRETTY WELL.
THE, UH, FOR US, I THINK THE KEY WAS, UM, THE PROCESS NORMALLY IS YOU, WE DID, WE TRIED TO SUBMIT SITE PLAN, THE TRACTOR WAS DETERMINED TO BE, UH, NOT LEGALLY PLATTED, SO WE TURNED INTO PLAT.
UM, BUT ALONG THE WAY, I THINK AS ROBERT WAS TRYING TO ALLUDE TO, WE WERE TOLD THAT PROCESS, BECAUSE NORMALLY YOU TURN IN A PLAT AND YOU DO YOUR DEAL, BUT WE HAD THIS ISSUE WITH THE DRAINAGE
[01:15:01]
EASEMENT.SO, UM, SO THEY TOLD US HOW THEY WANTED TO RESOLVE THAT.
SO WE FILED WHAT THEY ASKED US TO RESOLVE.
AND I THINK IN SUMMARY, KIND OF WHAT ROBERT SAYING, THE BALL KEPT MOVING FOR US.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, AT LEAST ME AS AN ENGINEER, I SEE THESE THINGS EVERY DAY.
THE AREA LEFT IS REALLY SMALL.
AND IN DISCUSSIONS WITH 'EM, I THINK I TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU CAN FIT LIKE ONE BAY, A LITTLE LITTLE BAY OF PARKING ON THERE AND THEN PUT A BUILDING ABOVE IT AND THAT'S IT.
SO, AND AT LEAST IN MY HEAD, I COULD, I COULD SPEND THE 40 OR $50,000 TO COME UP WITH A SITE PLAN THAT I DON'T EVEN KNOW IS GONNA BE APPROVED.
CUZ I, I CAN'T RIGHT NOW, I'D BE STICKING IN A FLOOD PLANE AND THEN, THEN HE'D PAY THE 30 OR $40,000 IN CITY FEES.
SO HE'D GO 80, A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN FOR SOMETHING THAT COULDN'T BE APPROVED.
WHEN I, AGAIN, I'M AN ENGINEER AND SO I SEE IT ALL THE TIME, BUT IT SEEMED REALLY COMMON SENSE TO ME THAT I GOT A LITTLE RECTANGLE AND I CAN, THAT'S ABOUT ALL I CAN DEVELOP IS THAT LITTLE RECTANGLE.
SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE STOPPED HERE CUZ I THINK MY CUSTOMER'S TIRED OF PAYING ME MONEY, SO
COMMISSIONER SHERRI, PLEASE, PLEASE KEEP GOING.
UM, I THINK THAT'S ALL THE, THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR NOW.
DOES ANYONE HERE ON THE DIAS? I KNOW, SCOTT, YOU HAD SOME YEAH, GO FOR IT, PLEASE.
I, UH, RACHEL SCOTT, UM, UH, DISTRICT TWO, UM, I JUST, UM, LOOKED AT THE VARIOUS MATERIALS THAT I GOT AND THEN I JUST, I WENT TO MY COMPUTER AND I LOOKED AT THIS PLOT OF LAND ON GOOGLE MAPS AND IT'S LIKE A POSTAGE SIZE PIECE OF LAND.
UM, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IF CRITICAL WATER QUALITY, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE, IF THE INITIALS WILL FIT ON THE
IT'S A, IT'S SUCH A SMALL AREA, UH, THAT, THAT TO START TALKING ABOUT CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, UH, FEATURES IS, UH, SUGGESTS, UH, A PROBLEM THAT I DON'T SEE EXISTS ANYMORE THAN THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBORS BEHIND ME ON, I'M, I'M ON LAR CREEK, THROW TRASH ONTO THE BANK OF THE CREEK, AND I CAN'T GET THE CITY TO COME OUT AND GET UP TO CLEAN IT UP.
YOU KNOW, IT'S AS BIG OF A PROBLEM AS IS THIS.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT GOES ON AND ON.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS THAT IS A, IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE KIND OF A TEMPEST IN A TEAPOT.
IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S NOT A SP SOME KIND OF SPECIAL, UH, BIRD SANCTUARY.
IT'S A QUARTER OF A OF AN ACRE THAT, UM, HAS BUILDINGS ALL AROUND IT.
IT'S ON LAMAR, UH, IN A ON MAR IS IT MARY STREET.
AND IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT IF YOU PUT IN A, AN ADEQUATE SIZE CULVERT, UH, I THINK THOSE OF US HAVE TAKEN PHYSICS KNOW THAT AS YOU ENLARGE A CULVERT, UH, THE PHYSICS ARE SUCH THAT YOU GET, UM, UH, A LOT OF BANG FOR YOUR BUCK AND YOU CAN SOLVE, YOU CAN SOLVE A, A PROBLEM THAT'S, UH, UH, PRESENTLY THERE AND MAKE IT GO AWAY BY, UH, BY DOING THAT, WHICH SEEMS TO BE WHAT THE APPLICANT THINKS REASONABLE TO DO.
SO I, I'M, UH, UH, YEAH, I'M, I'M AS ADAMANT ABOUT, UH, PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT, I THINK AS, UH, UH, ANYONE CAN BE ON THIS COMMISSION, BUT, UM, I JUST DON'T SEE, I, I FEEL AS THOUGH, UM, THIS IS KIND OF ONE OF THESE CITY HALL THINGS WHICH THAT HAVE JUST GOTTEN INTO A, YOU KNOW, INTO A MESS.
AND, AND I, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO JUST SAY, OKAY, STOP.
LET'S JUST MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.
BUT I, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME LIKE A LOT OF MONEY'S BEING SPENT OVER VERY LITTLE, AND IT DOESN'T SEEM, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM FAIR.
AND, UM, IT, IT, I FEEL, I FEEL FRUSTRATED WHEN I LOOK AT IT THAT, THAT THIS HAS EVEN HAD TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION BECAUSE IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S A FAIRLY SMI, A MINOR MATTER WHERE THEY WANNA BUILD A, A FEW APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND, AND, UM, COULD PUT THEM, PUT SOME PARKING BELOW SO THAT IF THERE IS SOME OVERFLOW, UH, YOU KNOW, NOBODY, NOBODY WOULD HAVE A RULING FIRST FLOOR AND THEY COULD HAVE, THEY
[01:20:01]
COULD MAYBE MAKE SOME MONEY OFF OF, OFF OF, UH, UH, PUTTING IN SOME, UH, VERY BADLY NEEDED, UH, HOUSING IN AN AREA WHERE WE WANT HOUSING AND INSTEAD IT'S JUST SITTING THERE.UM, AND NOTHING'S BEING DONE WITH IT.
AND I, HOW, HOW WE GET FROM WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW TO WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US BE, UM, WE WOULD PROBABLY ALL LIKE TO SEE US BE SOMEWHERE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD.
I, I'M NOT THAT GOOD AT SOLVING THE PROBLEMS, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S MY TAKE ON IT AFTER DISCUSSING IT AND, UH, AND TAKING A LOOK AT, AT THE, UH, PROPERTY ON GOOGLE MAPS, I, I WISH I'D HAD TIME TO GO OVER AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT, BUT FROM THE PICTURES OF IT, IT JUST LOOKS LIKE A, YOU KNOW, JUST A, MOSTLY JUST A PIECE OF LAND IS PROBABLY DRY RIGHT NOW, BEING THAT WE'VE, YOU KNOW, GOT, IT'S A LITTLE WATER.
SO I, CRITICAL WATER QUALITIES, I DON'T KNOW, DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
I HAVE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS? YEAH, THIS IS RICK BRIER.
UH, I HAVE A, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UH, STAFF.
UH, IT SEEMS TO ME, BASED UPON, UH, WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IS THIS LOT IS ALMOST UNBILLABLE, IS THAT CORRECT? WRECKED, THIS IS LIZ JOHNSTON, WATERSHED PROTECTION.
UM, THE FLOODPLAIN PRO EXISTS, THE, THE, THE MODEL, UH, THE LOCATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN MAKES IT VERY CHALLENGING TO BUILD.
I WOULDN'T LIKE TO USE THE WORD UNBUILDABLE NECESSARILY, BUT THERE ARE CHALLENGES ON THE SITE FOR SURE.
SO, OKAY, I'LL REMOVE THE WORD UNBILL UNBILLABLE AND SAY THAT THE CHALLENGE BUILD ON A LOT COULD BE ALMOST INSURMOUNTABLE IN A FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE.
UM, I ALSO DISAGREE WITH INSURMOUNTABLE, UM,
I, YOU KNOW, UM, COMMISSIONER SCOTT MENTIONED THERE WOULD BE HOUSING ON THERE, BUT THEY HAVEN'T ACTUALLY SUBMITTED A HOUSING PROJECT.
SO IF THERE WERE A HOUSING PROJECT PROPOSED THAT MET THE FINDINGS OF FACT, IT MIGHT BE THAT WE WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION.
KATIE COIN ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER.
I THINK ULTIMATELY THIS IS A PROCESS ISSUE.
WE'VE LAID OUT A PROCESS THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND IN KIND WITH THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON A VARIANCE.
ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD BE A, A LARGE DIVERGENCE FROM PRECEDENT FOR THE WAY WE LOOK AT PROJECTS LIKE THIS.
IF WE WERE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, WHICH WE DO NOT, IF THERE SEEMS TO BE A DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE WAY THE PROCESS UNFOLDED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE APPLICANT AND CITY STAFF, THE APPLICANT.
THE WAY I HEARD THINGS DIDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THE, THE, THE VARIOUS STEPS OF THE PROCESS, ALTHOUGH STAFF SEEMS TO HAVE OUTLINED THEM, YOU KNOW, FAIRLY CLEARLY.
IS THERE, AND SO THIS QUESTION IS, IS KIND OF DIRECTED AT BOTH PARTIES, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE IS A, A DISCONNECT BETWEEN BOTH PARTIES ABOUT HOW YOU ACTUALLY GET THIS SORT OF THING APPROVED.
AM I CORRECT IN THAT? UM, I THINK THAT THERE CERTAINLY WAS AT FIRST.
UM, AS HE, THEY MENTIONED IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW.
THEY'VE HAD A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT REVIEW STAFF BECAUSE STAFF TURNOVER HAS HAPPENED.
UM, THEY'VE BEEN, I DON'T KNOW IF THE SHOT CLOCK BILL PASSED IN THAT TIME THAT AFFECTED SUBDIVISION REVIEWS AND MY POSITION WAS CREATED.
AND SO THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF PROCESS DISCUSSIONS, UM, BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT STAFF, AND THEN ME LATER.
I THINK I CAME IN HALFWAY THROUGH MAYBE, AND THEN, AND, AND, AND NOW.
SO YES, I, I THINK THAT IS REGRETTABLE AND IT IS, IT IS.
UM, I CAN IMAGINE WHY THEY WOULD BE FRUSTRATED.
SO, UH, YOU WANT ME TO RESPOND REAL QUICK FOR YOU? YEAH, PLEASE DO, MR. THOMPSON.
SO, UH, I, I'VE BEEN PRACTICING IN AUSTIN SINCE, UH, 91 I THINK IT IS.
UM, SO I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, AND I KNEW WE HAD, WE, WE, THEY WANTED TO DO A SITE PLAN.
WE HAD TO START WITH GETTING THE PLA, THE SUBDIVISION
[01:25:01]
LEGAL, THE, UM, THE STAFF HAS CHANGED A LOT.AND THE, UM, THE RE WHEN WE, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THE FLOODPLAIN OCCUPIES MOST OF THE PROPERTY.
THE, THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE SETBACK OCCUPIES ALL THE PROPERTY.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THAT LEAVE FOR AN ENGINEER TO DESIGN? UM, WHEN WE WERE DOING THE PLAT, THIS ALL CAME UP.
AND SO WE, THE, THE REVIEWER AT THE TIME WHO, I'M NOT SURE IF HE'S EVEN WITH AUSTIN ANYMORE, HE GAVE US A, A PROCESS, A, A REQUEST FOR US TO TURN IN THE SITE PLAN THAT, UM, YOU SEE, WHICH IS REALLY JUST FOR THE DEALING WITH THE CREEK FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOLKS TO REVIEW IT.
UM, THERE MAY BE THIS, THIS PROCESS OF SEEING THE, THE WHOLE PICTURE.
UM, BUT THAT'S NOT, THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT KIND OF PROCESSES THAT MAY BE WHAT THEY WANTED WOULD LIKE TO, TO SEE, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE APPROVING.
BUT, UM, THE NORMAL PROCESS IS YOU GET A SUBDIVISION APPROVED FIRST, AND THEN YOU GO ON FOR YOUR SITE PLAN.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
AND THIS, THIS LITTLE EXTRA SITE PLAN IS REALLY JUST TO GET THE SUBDIVISION APPROVED, AND THEN WE WOULD GO IN WITH THE SITE PLAN, WHICH WE REALLY CAN'T TURN IN, WHAT WE COULD DO CONCURRENTLY, BUT ACTUALLY WITH THE SHOT CLOCK MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT.
SO I, I BELIEVE WE DO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.
I BELIEVE WE FOLLOW THE PROCESS.
I BELIEVE WE FOLLOW THE UNIQUE LITTLE WRINKLE THAT WAS GIVEN TO US BY THE REVIEWER AT THE TIME.
UM, BUT THEN LATER, UH, I THINK IN THE SUMMER OF 2001, AFTER, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL YEARS OF THIS, THAT'S WHEN THE REQUEST FOR THE SITE PLAN, AND AGAIN, I, ON THE ONE HAND, I, I UNDERSTAND, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AREA'S SO SMALL AND THE WHOLE PROPERTY IS ALREADY IN THE FOOT, WELL, IN A CRITICAL SETBACK, AND THEN MOSTLY IN THE FLOODPLAIN IT, IN MY OPINION, THEY COULD HAVE LOOKED AT JUST A DISCUSSION ABOUT A CONCEPT AND HAD ALL THEIR ANSWERS IN MY OPINION.
AND JUST, JUST ONE MORE COMMENT TO ADD ON KATIE COHEN, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS AND, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE FIRST TIME STAFF REQUESTED A SITE PLAN FOR SUBMITTAL FOR US TO MEANINGFULLY REVIEW THIS APPLICATION WAS OVER TWO YEARS AGO.
I, I'D LIKE, I'M THE OWNER, UH, AND I, AND I APPRECIATE SOME OF THE COMMENTS YOU WOULDN'T MIND.
SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME JUST FOR THE RECORD.
UH, SO LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ABOUT MYSELF, UH, THAT I THINK I'LL JUST DO A QUICK FLYOVER.
UH, I'VE DEVELOPED PROPERTY ALL AROUND AUSTIN, TEXAS, UH, FROM 90, UH, PROBABLY 91 TO ABOUT 98.
UH, I DELIVERED ABOUT 40 UNITS A YEAR.
UNDERSTAND THE HOUSING NEEDS IN AUSTIN.
UH, I HAVE ALSO, UH, COMPLETED PROJECTS IN, UH, NORTHWEST FLORIDA.
SO I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.
THIS PROCESS HAS CONTINUALLY MOVED, UH, SINCE WE'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY.
WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AFTER STAFF REVIEWED A PLAN.
THE PLAN WAS A LOGICAL PLAN, WHICH WAS TO CONNECT THE UNCONNECTED IMPROVEMENTS, UH, FOR THE DRAINAGE.
THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE NEW, UH, TO THE PROCESS, AND WE HAVE DONE OUR BEST TO COMPLY WITH THOSE.
UH, BUT WE HAVE BEEN AT THIS FOR SIX YEARS.
WE'VE HAD GOOD PEOPLE ON IT, SMART PEOPLE.
UM, IN THOSE SIX YEARS, I PAID OVER $380,000 IN TRAVIS COUNTY TAXES FOR A THREE QUARTER ACRE LOT THAT IS VALUED AT 3 MILLION WHERE EVERYONE ELSE HAS BEEN ABLE TO USE THEIR PROPERTY.
THEY DUMP THE WATER CREATED BY THE STATE CITY DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.
ONE WAS NOT ADEQUATE TO RELIEVE THE WATER COMING OUT OF SOUTH LAMAR.
WE CAN BUILD SOMETHING WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL BE A NICE ADDITION, UH, MULTI-FAMILY.
UH, SO I WANT TO JUST ADDRESS THOSE THINGS.
THIS WAS ZONED, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CITY WANTS, AND WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR HELP.
AND TAKING THE NEXT STEP WILL DELIVER A VERY NICE PRODUCT.
AND ACTUALLY, THE CREEK WILL LOOK BETTER THAN IT LOOKS RIGHT NOW.
UH, AND I CAN USE THE PROPERTY VERSUS A RAW PIECE OF LAND THAT COSTS $65,000 A YEAR IN TAXES.
BREMER, YOUR NEXT NICHOLS AFTER BREMMER.
I'D JUST LIKE TO ECHO, UH, RA UH, COMMISSIONER SCOTT'S COMMENTS AS WELL.
UM, IT'S BEEN A VERY, VERY LONG TIME.
I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF BUILDING
[01:30:01]
MORE HOUSING, SO I'M SUPPORTIVE.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YEP, GO FOR IT.
UM, I, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU HAVE A PEACE PROPERTY THAT'S IN, IN THE FLOODPLAIN, AND THAT'S DIFFICULT, RIGHT? UM, AS A CITIZEN, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HEAR ABOUT PEOPLE BUYING, YOU KNOW, THINGS IN THE FLOODPLAIN, AND THEN THEY BUILD IN IT, AND THEN THEY WONDER WHY IT FLOODS.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, UH, IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE ALL AGREE, YOU KNOW, UM, THAT WE NEED MORE HOUSING IN THAT AREA, DENSITY, UM, YOU KNOW, ALL THOSE THINGS.
HOWEVER, WHAT I DON'T LIKE IS BEING CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF STAFF AND AN APPLICANT NOT BEING ABLE TO AGREE AND THEN PUTTING IT TO US TO BE A DEAL BREAKER WHEN WE HAVE BASICALLY THREE OR FOUR DAYS TO REVIEW ALL OF THIS INFORMATION AND THEN TRY TO MAKE, UM, A JUDGMENT ON THAT BASED ON THAT.
UM, I AM IN THE MIND TO, UM, REQUEST THAT THIS GO BACK FOR 30 DAYS AND THAT WE SEE YOU NEXT MONTH.
WOULD THAT GIVE Y'ALL ENOUGH TIME TO WORK OUT SOME OF THESE DETAILS? AND I'M ASKING STAFF DIRECTLY.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT WE COULD PROBABLY WORK OUT SOME OF THE RESTORATION AND WETLAND MITIGATION DETAILS.
HOWEVER, THE PRECEDENT OF, UM, ALLOWING A VARIANCE TO GO FORWARD WITHOUT A PROJECT FOR A FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION IS FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT.
AND SO I DON'T BELIEVE WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPORT A VARIANCE WITHOUT AN ACTUAL PROJECT, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GET THAT TO US IN 30 DAYS.
AND TO KATIE'S POINT THAT WAS COMMUNICATED, UM, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, YOU CAN I FOLLOW UP ON THAT? YEP.
UM, APPRECIATE THE, THE COMMENT.
I THINK THAT'S A, I I AGREE WITH MANY OF THE POINTS THAT YOU'RE MAKING ABOUT KIND OF WHERE WE'RE STUCK IN THE MIDDLE HERE.
UM, I GUESS THE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT WOULD BE, WHAT, WHAT I'M KIND OF HEARING IS ONE OF THE CRUX POINTS HERE IS YOU'RE AT A, YOU'RE AT A PROCESS.
I'M, I'M LOOKING AT A, A, A GRAY BOX OF, UH, OF A, A CONCEPT.
UM, BUT THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL, YOU KNOW, CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN MAKING THAT SUBMITTAL, UH, UNDER A CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN, UM, BOTH FOR ENGINEERING DRAWINGS AND THEN A PRESUMABLY AN APPLICATION FEE.
UM, WOULD THE, I MEAN, YOU, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A GUT CHECK WHETHER IT WOULD BE A VIABLE PROJECT AS THIS OR, OR NOT VIABLE TO KIND OF USE, UH, PRIMER'S WORDS, IF, IS THAT CORRECT? OR WOULD THAT BENEFIT YOU KIND OF A GUT CHECK BEFORE YOU SUBMITTED A CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN? IF THAT COULD BE CONDUCTED, IF THEY COULD, UH, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH A, UM, THE CONCEPTS I PLAN, I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING AT THERE AND, AND AGREE THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WOULD WORK.
I THINK ONE OF THE CONCERNS THEY EXPRESSED A WHILE BACK WAS, YOU KNOW, HEARING FROM OTHER DISCIPLINES, THEY COULD AGREE THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT COULD WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT APPROVED, RICK.
UM, I THINK, YEAH, THAT'D BE, THAT WOULD WORK.
I DO WANT TO MAKE ONE COMMENT, YES, SIR.
THIS, THIS LAND DOES NOT SHOW UP ON A FEMA MAP AS FLOOD ZONE.
IT WAS CREATED BY THE UPLAND WATERSHED THROUGH THE CULVERT DUMPING ON OUR LAND.
THAT'S WHAT CREATES THE PROBLEM.
THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONNECTED TO THE IMPROVEMENTS AT EVERGREEN WHEN EVERGREEN WAS COMPLETED.
THE IMPROVEMENTS IN EVERGREEN ARE SMALLER THAN WHAT IS BEING LET OUT AT LAMAR.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS A CITY DECISION.
WE CAN FIX THAT, AND THAT, TO ME, THERE'S NO WAY FOR ME TO EVEN KNOW THAT IT WOULDN'T SHOW UP WHEN I BOUGHT THE LAND AND STAFF.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? UM, I DIDN'T HEAR THE ENTIRE THING, BUT I, I, I, I DON'T KNOW.
I WILL JUST ADD REAL QUICK TO THE ATLAS 14 IS INTERVENED IN ALL THIS TOO.
SO NOW WE HAVE MORE WATER, WHICH WE HAD TO MODEL.
TEXT DOT INSTALL TWO FOUR BY FOUR CULVERTS UNDER SOUTH LAMAR.
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND SPEAKING TO THE MIC A LITTLE BIT FOR THE REMOTE, MICHAEL.
WHEN, UH, THE LAST TIME TEXDOT WORKED ON THE CULVERTS, THEY INSTALLED
[01:35:01]
TWO FOUR BY FOUR FOOT CULVERTS TO TRANSMIT WHAT THE CITY BUILT WAS A 30, WHAT WAS IT, A 30 INCH? BASICALLY, INSTEAD OF BEING 32 SQUARE FEET, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A SMALLER, IT'S A, IT'S A SMALLER AREA OF DRAINAGE THAN WHAT TEXDOT IS DISCHARGING.AND THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING SOME OF THE BACK BACKUP AND BACKFLOW ON THIS PROPERTY IS THE CITY PROJECT, WHICH WHEN THEY DID THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, SAID THERE'S NO WETLANDS HERE.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S, MAYBE IT'S A COINCIDENCE, BUT NOBODY ELSE HAS SEEN THIS WETLANDS UNTIL THE, THE EVERGREEN CULVERT WENT IN.
BUT THAT IS, IT IS MATHEMATICALLY, YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PLANTS AND, AND SEE THAT THE CITY BUILT A SMALLER ORIFICE UNDER EVERGREEN THAN WHAT TEXDOT DID TO KIND OF FOLLOW UP ON, UH, SECRETARY'S THOUGHTS.
UM, I, I DON'T WANT TO PUT IT, I DON'T, I UNDERSTAND THAT CITY DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE A PRECEDENT FOR REVIEWING A FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION WITHOUT A SITE PLAN TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S THE MINIMUM DIVERSION FROM CODE OR, UM, OR FOR INSTANCE, WITH, UH, C F MITIGATION.
IF THERE ARE OTHER AREAS WHERE C E F MITIGATION COULD OCCUR, UM, IF THERE IS A, A RESOLUTION, KIND OF A, A GUT CHECK TO USE THE LANGUAGE I WAS USING BEFORE OF, OF DO YOU HAVE A VIABLE PROJECT, UM, FROM THIS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN, UH, I'D BE INTERESTED TO SEE IF, IF STAFF COULD, COULD GIVE THEM, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT GONNA BE A GUARANTEE, UM, BUT IT MAY BE SOME ASSURANCE, UH, OF A, OF SOME OF A VIABLE ROAD FORWARD FOR YOU, UM, ON THE SITE WHERE, UH, WE'RE NOT ASKED TO, TO, WE, WE DO FOLLOW STAFF'S PRECEDENT OR THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS VERY CLOSELY BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR, THEIR JOB IS TO, TO DO THESE ANALYSES.
UM, SO IT'S IN A DIFFICULT SPOT FOR US TO, TO GRANT VARIANCES AGAINST THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION REALLY OF, OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERIORITY.
UM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK WE'RE ALL HEARING THAT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A, UH, UNIQUE, UM, MAYBE NON PRECEDENT SETTING, UH, SITUATION.
UM, SO YEAH, I, I, I, IF, IF I, I, I GUESS MAYBE IF THERE'S AN OPTION FOR, YEAH, UH, LET ME JUST TRY TO RAMBLE FOR LESS TIME.
UM, THERE'S AN OPTION FOR STAFF TO GIVE THEM MAYBE NOT A, A FULL FINDINGS OF ACT ANALYSIS, BUT SOME KIND OF A, UM, CONFIDENCE INTERVAL THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING.
BUT YES, COMMISSIONER AGUIGUI, PLEASE.
UM, I DO RECALL, YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS, UM, ON THE BLOOD MITIGATION TASK FORCE, REALLY STRESSING THE POINT THAT WHENEVER ANY PROJECT IS APPROVED, IT IS SO CRITICAL THAT THERE'S NO ADVERSE IMPACT FOR ANY OTHER PROPERTIES ADJACENT OR DOWNSTREAM.
UM, I DO HAVE EXAMPLES WHEN ONE DEPARTMENT MAKES A DECISION WITH OR MAKES A CALL WITHOUT CHECKING WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN PRIOR PROJECTS RELATED TO THIS PROPERTY.
IF THAT DID HAPPEN, THAT'S AGAIN, ANOTHER REASON FOR THE CITY TO BE FLEXIBLE WHEN A MISTAKE WAS MADE.
IF THAT IS THE CASE THAT THE CITY BE MORE FLEXIBLE IN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THE PRIOR DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE THAT HARMED THIS PROPERTY, MAKING IT THEREFORE HARDER TO DEVELOP IT, I THINK WE NEED TO WORK, BE FLEXIBLE.
MY, MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO BE FLEXIBLE AND REALLY STRESS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS WHEN THEY MAKE A DECISION TO ALWAYS CHECK.
AND IT MAYBE NEEDS TO BE A, A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT THAT THAT DEPARTMENT ALWAYS CHECK WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS OKAY, ACTUALLY MEETS THAT CRITERIA THAT WATERSHED PROTECTION, UM, IS REQUIRED TO DO.
BECAUSE AGAIN, AS I'VE EXPRESSED IN THE PAST, THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT IS THE ONE DEPARTMENT THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.
SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY HOMES IN A AREA THAT IS PRONE TO FLOODING, ALL THE MORE CRITICAL IT IS THAT THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT BE INVOLVED.
BUT IF THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE ON THE PART OF CITY STAFF FOR OTHER ENTITIES,
[01:40:01]
I THINK IT WOULD BE BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK WE NEED TO STEP BACK AND MAYBE BE MORE, TAKE A LITTLE EXTRA CONSIDERATION IN WORKING AND BEING FLEXIBLE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DID NOT CREATE THE SITUATION.IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE SOME OTHER PRIOR DECISIONS MAY HAVE RESULTED IN PART OF, PART OF THE SITUATION, ALTHOUGH I KNOW THAT THERE IS A CREEK THAT GOES THROUGH THE PROPERTY, MAYBE WAS ALWAYS GOING TO BE FLOODING, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT I THINK THAT MAYBE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PIZZA PLACE, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IN THE BACKUP, THERE WAS INFIELD THAT WAS ALLOWED.
AND I THOUGHT, WOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG AGO THAT HAPPENED, BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD KNOW THAT WOULD CREATE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OR THE PROPERTIES DOWNSTREAM.
SO I THINK WE JUST NEED TO PROBABLY STEP BACK AND LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE AND INSTEAD OF POINTING FINGERS, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN WORK TOGETHER AND SEE WHAT WE CAN MAKE, MAKE IT FEASIBLE.
SO COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER GUERRE, I REALLY APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS.
UM, I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR THAT WE, WE ARE NOT AWARE THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE.
UH, YOU KNOW, THE GUIDANCE THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED OVER THE YEARS, UM, HA HAS BEEN THE BEST AVAILABLE GUIDANCE OF STAFF AT THAT TIME, THAT REALLY FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR THE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE THAT WE NEED TO MAKE A DETERMINATION.
AND I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T MEAN TO THROW ANYBODY UNDER THE BUS, UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE, WE HAVE HAD PERSONAL EXPERIENCES IN OUR AREA WHERE IE DEPARTMENT, WE DIDN'T MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT CHECKING WOOD WATERSHED PROTECTION.
NEEDLESS TO SAY, WE POINTED OUT TO THAT DEPARTMENT, PLEASE, FROM ME ON ALWAYS CHECK WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION BECAUSE THEY ARE ALLIES AND WE ASK FOR YOU TO BE RESPECTFUL OF PROTECTING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, JUST LIKE WATERSHED PROTECTION ALWAYS DOES.
SO THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
UH, I HAVE A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, IF I MAY.
UH, I SUPPORT THE POINTS THAT, UH, YOU AND THE SECRETARY HAVE BEEN MAKING, UH, REGARDING THIS THAT WE SHOULD AND SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT WE MAY NEED TO LOOK AT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE CAREFULLY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF WE DO THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S STILL CONCERNS.
UH, YOU KNOW, THE CITY IS SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY BUYING OUT PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN FLOOD ZONES.
UH, AND SO EVEN IF WE DO THIS, AND IF WE WERE THEN TO DECIDE TO DO THAT, WE WOULD HAVE TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT APPROVING THIS, CUZ IT'S, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF THE MITIGATION, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THE STEPS TAKEN TO, YOU KNOW, PREVENT FLOODING, YOU KNOW, IT'S A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD ZONE.
IF WE HAVE A 500 YEAR FLOOD, THEN THAT'S PROPERTY TOASTED.
AND SO WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL IN EVALUATING THAT.
ALSO, YOU KNOW, CHALLENGING WATER THAT'S DESIGNED BY NATURE TO, TO DISPERSE OVER A WIDE AREA AND NARROWLY FUNNELING, IT JUST INCREASES THE SPEED AND, AND THE, THE DAMAGE POTENTIAL OF IT, UH, YOU KNOW, GOING DOWNSTREAM.
SO KIND OF, UH, AS WAS DISCUSSED, WHEN THE PIZZA PLACE, YOU KNOW, DISPERSED THEIR DIRT SOMEPLACE TO AFFECT THE PROPERTY, THAT WAS UNDER DISCUSSION.
NOW, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE MAKE A CHANGE HERE, THEN IT COULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT DOWNSTREAM.
SO SIMPLY BECAUSE WE, WE COME TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT LOOKS LIKE A REASONABLE SOLUTION NOW DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NECESSARILY AN APPROVABLE THING, IT JUST MEANS WE ARE IN A BETTER POSITION TO LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS AND MAKE A BETTER DECISION.
MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, IN FAVOR OF IT OR, OR WHATEVER, WHATEVER.
BUT I WOULD SUPPORT TAKING SOME TIME TO LOOK AT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE CAREFULLY.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, DO YOU HAVE THAT? YEAH.
HI, COMMISSIONER BARRETT BIXLER.
UM, SO PIGGYBACKING ON WHAT BRIER SAID, I MEAN, I THINK THIS IS, WELL, ONE REASON WHY STAFF IS SAYING THAT, UM, THE ONE-TO-ONE MITIGATION LIKE STRATEGY NEEDS TO BE SPECIFIED SO WE CAN GET THE FULL PICTURE OF WHAT, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL IMPACT WOULD BE DOWNSTREAM.
UM, SO I MEAN, WITH MY NOTES, I, I GUESS THE QUESTION, THE APP, THE APPLICANT, IS IT, THERE'S NO, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE, UH, HESITANCY OR RESISTANCE IN SUBMITTING THE CONCEPT SITE PLAN AND THE CF MITIGATION PLAN AND THE RESTORATION PLAN? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I, I DON'T KNOW IF I FULLY CAUGHT THAT.
SO IN OUR MIND, UH, THEY MAY, LIZ MAY, THEY MAY NOT AGREE, BUT IN OUR MIND, WE DID SUBMIT
[01:45:01]
A MITIGATION PLAN.WE WERE WORKING WITH A PRIOR REVIEWER, UM, TO TRY TO, UM, RESOLVE, RESOLVE ALL THAT.
UM, I DON'T REMEMBER IF, IF, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT IT, I DON'T REMEMBER IF THAT PICTURE ACTUALLY MADE IT TO THE REVIEWER OR NOT, BUT, UM, BUT I WILL SAY AT THE END OF THE DAY, I DON'T, UH, ONE TO WHAT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS COVERED BY THESE ZONES.
SO, UH, I BELIEVE THE DISCUSSION, IF I REMEMBER RIGHTS BEEN A COUPLE YEARS, UM, IS WE, WE CAN'T GET TO ONE-TO-ONE BECAUSE THE WHOLE PROPERTY, IF WE, IF YOU WERE ALREADY, THERE'S, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PROPERTY LEFT.
UM, AND I, AND I UNDERSTOOD WITH THAT THE PRIOR REVIEWER, WE WERE REALLY WORKING IN A, WELL, HOW MUCH CAN WE, HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? AND I DON'T, I I, I DIDN'T SENSE THE STAFF COULD EVER REALLY GET CLEAR IN THEIR MIND EITHER HOW MUCH WAS ENOUGH.
AND THAT WAS PART OF WHAT GENERATED THE, ONE OF A SITE PLAN SO THAT THEY COULD SEE AND THEY COULD MAYBE COME TO A FEELING THAT, OKAY, MAYBE, MAYBE WE'RE NOT LETTING 'EM HAVE TOO MUCH DEVELOPMENT AND MAYBE WE'RE GETTING AS MUCH AS WE CAN, AND THEN WE WILL PAY THE FEAR WHATEVER THE REST OF THE SOLUTION WAS, UM, IN OUR HEAD, RIGHTLY OR WRONG, A I THINK, YOU KNOW, THOSE DISAGREE O SEE OBVIOUSLY DISAGREES, BUT, UH, BUT, BUT WE DID, WE THOUGHT WE GOT THERE.
WE THOUGHT WE PROVIDED ALL WE COULD.
WE THOUGHT WE WERE AT AN IMPASSE WHERE WE COULDN'T DO ANYMORE.
LET ME JUST SAY REAL QUICK, A LITTLE OFF SUBJECT, BUT IN RELATION TO THE FLOODPLAIN, JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS, WE DID MODEL IT.
WE, WE WERE CLEARED WITH THE FLOODPLAIN REVIEWER OR WERE BEFORE WITHDRAW RESUBMIT.
UM, AND WE ACTUALLY REDUCED THE VELOCITY WITH THE CHANGES WE'RE PROPOSING.
AND, UM, AND WE DID LOOK AT IMPACTS UPSTREAM, DOWNSTREAM, AND EVERYTHING, AND WE'RE EITHER THE SAME OR IMPROVING ON ALL THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
AND IF, IF I CAN ADD, THANK YOU, UM, MR. THOMPSON, UM, IF WE HAD MORE DETAIL ON THE PLANS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE HAD THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDINGS, WE COULD SEE WHERE THE WATER IS GOING OFF OF THAT BUILDING.
IS IT GOING IN A PIPE OR IS IT GOING OVERLAND FLOW? UM, IS, IS THAT GOING TO BE, UM, SOMETHING THAT WE CAN USE FOR WETLAND MITIGATION, FOR EXAMPLE? UM, SAME WITH THE PARKING LOT.
WHERE IS THAT GOING? IS IT GOING INTO GREEN AREAS INSTEAD OF GOING INTO A PIPE, UM, AND STRAIGHT INTO THE CREEK? SO THOSE ARE THE SORT OF, UM, THINGS THAT WE USE FOR WETLAND MITIGATION IS TO IMPROVE THE, UM, THE HYDROLOGY LEAVING THE DEVELOPED AREA.
AND WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION, UM, WE CAN'T GET TO THE, THE ONE-TO-ONE WETLAND MITIGATION.
I BELIEVE WE COULD GET THERE WITH THIS SITE EVENTUALLY IF THERE WERE A PROJECT.
YEAH, I, UH, AGREE YOU WITH, UH, WHAT HONOR, UH, SAID EARLIER.
UM, AND, UM, I, WHEN I HEAR THE WAY THIS IS BEING DISCUSSED, UH, I'M, I AM I, IF I HAD NOT, UM, LOOKED AT THE PICTURE OF THIS PROPERTY, UM, ON THE GOOGLE MAPS, I THINK WE WERE MAYBE TALKING ABOUT THE STATESMAN P U D OR SOMETHING BECAUSE IT, IT SEEMS TO BE, HAVE BEEN GROWN INTO SOME, UH, TORRENTIAL FLOOD, LIKE ON THE EPIC SCALE WHEN IT'S A, UH, THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE BESIDE A PIZZA PARLOR THAT NOBODY IS RUNNING DOWN THE, UH, STREET SCREAMING, OH MY GOD, I'M AFRAID THE PIZZA PARLOR'S ABOUT TO FLOOD AND, AND WASH AWAY.
I JUST DON'T THINK THEY, THE ISSUE HERE IS, IS, UM, DIFF THAT DIFFICULT TO BE RESOLVED IF THE PARTIES COULD JUST SIT DOWN AND, AND, UM, AND WHEN, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH, WITH PIPES, UH, HOSES, PHYSICS, UH, IF, IF YOU'RE GOING FROM A SMALL PIPE TO A LARGER PIPE DOWNSTREAM, YOU'RE GOING TO REMOVE THE PROBLEM.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT, AS I LISTENED AND I TRIED TO LISTEN CAREFULLY, I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE, UH, THE, UH, PROPOSAL WAS.
AND, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS REALLY SOMETHING THAT SHOULD EVER HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS, AS A, UH, A FLOOD ZONE.
I THINK IT'S A, I I CLASSIFIED AS A UNFORTUNATE MISTAKE THAT CAN BE, UH, EASILY REMEDIED IF SOME PEOPLE JUST SIT DOWN AND, AND, AND TALK REASONABLY TOGETHER.
AND, AND WE KNOW WHAT IT'S BEEN LIKE GOING THROUGH THE, THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS WITH THE COVID PANDEMIC AND, AND HOW MUCH, UM, UH, CHANGE OF STAFF THERE HAS BEEN PEOPLE NOT COMING IN, PEOPLE SICK, UM, LACK OF FOLLOW THROUGH ALL OF THESE KINDS OF THINGS HAVE, YOU
[01:50:01]
KNOW, HAVE, HAVE TUBED INTO HERE, NO DOUBT TO MAKE THIS, UM, WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN JUST A SIMPLE PROJECT LIKE ANY OTHER, UH, TURN INTO SOME KIND OF A, A REAL NIGHTMARE.I MEAN, IF I HAD TO PAY, UM, UH, UH, A THIRD OF A MILLION DOLLARS IN PROPERTY TAXES ON THIS PROPERTY, I, I, I WOULDN'T WANNA PUT A WHOLE LOT MORE MONEY INTO IT,
I MEAN, I'M, I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT WHETHER I'M GONNA PAY MY TOLL, UH, CHARGES OR NOT.
CUZ I DON'T THINK THEY'RE REASONABLE.
SO
AND WE'RE USING THESE BIG WORDS THAT JUST, I DON'T THINK APPLY TO THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE ON LAMAR, IF YOU JUST DRIVE DOWN THERE, JUST, JUST TAKE A LOOK OVER AT IT.
IT'S JUST A, JUST A MORE OR LESS FLAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I JUST, I JUST THINK WHY DON'T, WHY CAN'T WE GET PEOPLE TOGETHER? SOMETIMES IN THE PAST, UM, THE, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION HAS HAD A SUBCOMMITTEE TO WORK WITH THE, UH, THE, UH, APPLICANT ON A, ON A PROJECT TO, TO, UH, TRY TO GET IT TO A POINT WHERE WE DON'T TAKE, YOU KNOW, 20, 30 PEOPLE'S TIME WITH IT.
AND THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER PROPOSAL THAT WE COULD DO.
UM, I JUST THINK WE NEED TO TRY TO KEEP IT IN PERSPECTIVE.
AND ALSO THERE'S NO NEED TO, TO, UH, FOR ANY OF US WHO HAS SIGNED BLAME, I THINK THINGS, THINGS WENT BADLY WRONG AT SOME POINT.
AND, AND IT'S, IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT FOR EVERYBODY.
I THINK THAT THAT'S, THAT'S ENOUGH SAID ABOUT THAT.
YEAH, NO, I, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
YEAH, I THINK THAT, YES, I THINK A LOT OF THAT WAS YES, SIR, PLEASE LET, LET ME RECOGNIZE THAT STAFF IS DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE CODE AND THEIR PERSPECTIVE IS LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS AND THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE DONE.
AND, AND, AND SO, BUT THE QUESTION, THE ANALYSIS ULTIMATELY IS NOT STARTING THERE.
IT IS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LAST TWO CRITERIA FOR GRANTING OF VARIANCE, IT IS, DO DO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED PREVENT A REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
THAT'S A NO-BRAINER QUESTION HERE.
THE ANSWER CLEARLY IS YES, YOU CAN'T GET A DRIVEWAY UNLESS YOU REDUCE THE WIDTH OF THE FLOODPLAIN.
AND SO THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO KNOW THAT WITHOUT A VARIANCE THE PROPERTY CAN'T BE DEVELOPED.
WHICH I THINK GOES TO COMMISSIONER BREMER'S COMMENT.
THE SECOND VARIANCE QUESTION IS, THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM DEVIATION FROM THE CODE REQUIREMENT NECESSARY TO ALLOW A REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
SO THE ANALYSIS IS NOT STARTING WITH RIPARIAN AREAS.
IT IS STARTING WITH WHAT IS A REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE OF THE PROPERTY.
WE'RE DOWN TO 9,600 SQUARE FEET.
AND SO IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK FOR ANOTHER 30 DAYS, I, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE, THE COMMISSION TO REALIZE, I, I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO BE THE DECISION MAKER, BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO STAFF, THEY'RE, THEY'RE TRAINED IN BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGICAL THINGS.
THEY'RE NOT TRAINED IN ECONOMICS.
AND Y'ALL BRING IN COMMUNITY VALUES THAT LOOK AT ALL THESE ISSUES.
AND, AND I, AND, AND I WROTE THIS IN AN EMAIL TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OVER A YEAR AGO THAT THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH WAS WRONG.
AND I HEAR IT AGAIN TODAY, AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GETTING TANGLED UP IN RED TAPE AND ONE-TO-ONE AND ALL THIS BECAUSE IT'S A SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY AND IT'S NOT ONE PERSON TO BLAME.
THIS HAS BEEN ACCUMULATED OVER A HUNDRED YEARS OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE MAKING DIFFERENT DECISIONS, AND IT'S ALL JUST KIND OF LANDED HERE.
I MEAN, WE CAN POINT TO EVERGREEN CULVERT, BUT I CAN ALSO SAY TECH DOT MOVED CREEK, PETE'S GARDEN RATE.
I MEAN, THERE'S, THERE'S A HUNDRED, THERE'S A HUNDRED PARTICIPANTS AND, AND WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY.
SO WHAT I'M ASKING Y'ALL IS TO CONSIDER IS A DIRECTIVE TO THE STAFF TO REALLY LOOK AT THE LAST TWO CRITERIA, WHICH ARE REALLY THE, THE CRUX OF THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU IS, CAN THERE BE ANY QUESTION THAT WITHOUT THE VARIANCES, THERE'S NO REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
I JUST DON'T THINK THERE'S, THEY NEED ANY SHRED OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
UH, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET A DRIVEWAY, PERIOD.
YOU CAN'T ACCESS THE 3,800 FEET.
THAT'S NOT IN A CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE IN A FLOODPLAIN.
AND THEN THE ANALYSIS IS WHAT DO YOU NEED THE MINIMUM DEVIATION TO ALLOW A REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY? THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE POINT.
THAT'S THE STARTING POINT, NOT THE END POINT.
AND I'M HEARING STAFF'S DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, BUT Y'ALL NEED, YOU'RE THE ONES WHO ARE GONNA COME IN AND SAY, YEAH, BUT I THINK COMMISSIONER BRIMER HAD A GUT FEELING ABOUT IS
[01:55:01]
THIS INSURMOUNTABLE? AND THEY'RE SAYING, WELL, NO, IT'S NOT, BUT YOU KNOW, HOW MANY YEARS DO WE NEED TO CHEW ON THIS? AND, AND SO IF, IF YOU DO ASK OR DIRECT FOR ANOTHER THIRD DAY'S DISCUSSION, I WOULD ASK YOU TO REALLY ASK STAFF TO LOOK AT THE, THE LAST TWO CRITERIA, SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE, BECAUSE THIS IS A, THIS IS A TOTAL TAKING WITHOUT THE VARIANCES.THERE'S NO, NO QUESTION LEGALLY ON THAT.
SO THIS, IT ISN'T HARD TO COMMISSIONER SCOTT'S POINT.
IT'S NOT HARD BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THAT IT, IT IS CREATED BY OTHERS.
IT'S NOT THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT PROJECT CAUSING THIS, BUT IF YOU DON'T GRANT THE VARIANCES, THEN THE PROPERTY IS BEING CONDEMNED BY THE CITY.
AND SO I JUST ASKED YOU TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE US GO BACK, TALK TO STAFF, I THINK IT'D BE GREAT FOR Y'ALL TO GIVE SOME DIRECTION STAFF ON, ON HOW TO APPROACH THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
THANK YOU, SHERIFF, IF I MIGHT JUST RESPOND.
KATIE COIN, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER COULDN'T AGREE MORE.
MINIMUM DEVIATION IS ONE CRITERIA THAT HAS TO BE MET.
WE CANNOT TELL IF IT'S THE MINIMUM DEVIATION FROM CODE WITHOUT MORE DETAILED CRITERIA FOR THE DESIGN OF THE SITE.
UH, AND SO UNDERSTANDING WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE LIMITING ALL ECONOMIC, ALL REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING IF THIS IS THE MINIMUM DEVIATION WITHOUT HAVING MORE INFORMATION ON A SITE PLAN.
AND ON TOP OF ALL THAT, IT IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE THAT UP IS ON THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE US WITH THAT INFORMATION.
SO DENYING THIS VARIANCE IS A PROCESS ISSUE BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION.
AND I WILL SAY THAT AGAIN IF I NEED TO, THIS IS A PROCESS ISSUE.
THIS IS NOT AN ULTIMATE DECISION THAT WE HAVE MADE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE SITE.
I I, I HEAR, UH, I HEAR BOTH OF THOSE POINTS.
YEAH, I WAS JUST, UH, CURIOUS, IS THERE A LIKE ESTIMATE TO WHERE YOU COULD PO THE APPLICANT COULD POSSIBLY GENERATE A SITE PLAN? LIKE IF THEY WERE TO GENERATE ONE, WOULD IT BE TAKE LIKE A MONTH, TWO MONTHS, THREE MONTHS? UM, AND OR IS THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN THAT WAS IN THE, THE PACKET RIGHT ON PAGE FIVE OF 25? IS THAT PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU'RE GOING WITH? THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL YOU GO WITH, IN MY OPINION AS AN ENGINEER.
I MEAN, I'VE BEEN, I'VE BEEN AT IT FOR, UH, 38 YEARS NOW AND THAT'S, YEAH, THAT'S SO LITTLE.
I DON'T SAY IT'S THE MINIMUM DEPARTURE, I DON'T KNOW, BUT, UM, THAT, YEAH, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT TO DO A FULL SIDE PLAN.
UM, WELL IF I JUST, WE'RE DOING WELL OVER HERE, SO, UH, I GOT A LOT OF PROJECTS, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW QUICK I'D GET ON IT, BUT I WAS STANDING THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY STILL TAKE A MONTH TO GET IT, UH, DESIGNED AND THEN YOU GO COMPLETING THIS CHECK AND BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
WE WOULD BE, UH, DEEP INTO SUMMER BEFORE WE PROBABLY REALLY HAD SOMETHING THE STAFF COULD START LOOKING AT.
UM, AND IT WOULD BE, UM, YEAH, IT'D BE HEADING TOWARD A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS TO, TO CREATE THAT THING TO REVIEW.
THAT'S WHY SINCE I DON'T REALLY SEE ANYTHING ELSE AND BEING AN OLD GUY, THAT CONCEPT LOOKS LIKE PLAYING TO ME PERSONALLY.
UM, THAT'D BE A LOT FASTER AND A LOT MORE TO THE POINT TO USE THE CONCEPT STAFF.
COULD, COULD YOU DO A REVIEW OF THAT CONCEPT PLAN? NOT, NOT KNOWING EXACTLY WHERE EVERY DOWNFALL IS OR WHERE, WHERE STORM DRAINS ARE OUT, DRAINS ARE OUT.
I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO LIZ ON THIS.
I WANT HER TO PROVIDE DETAIL, BUT MY INITIAL REACTION TO THAT IS IF THEY WANT AN INFORMAL NOT HEAD NOD ON A CONCEPT PLAN, THAT'S NOT BEST PRACTICE.
CUZ WE DON'T WANNA THEN COME BACK TO YOU AND SAY, WE'RE DENYING THIS IN A YEAR AFTER WE GAVE THEM THE GREEN LIGHT ON A CONCEPT PLAN TO THEN SUBMIT A SITE PLAN, AND THEN IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.
WE DON'T WANT THAT TO BE THE CASE A YEAR OR TWO DOWN THE LINE.
IF YOU ARE SAYING IF THEY SUBMIT THEIR CONCEPT PLAN AS IT IS THROUGH THAT FORMAL PROCESS, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAS ENOUGH DETAIL FOR US TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT CONSIDERATION AND, AND DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AS STAFF.
BUT I WILL, I WILL DEFER TO LIZ.
I THINK THAT WE CAN'T ANSWER THAT WITHOUT THEM SUBMITTING IT FIRST, UH, TO SEE WHAT TYPE OF INFORMATION IS THERE AND IS THERE ENOUGH CLARITY FOR THEM TO THEN USE THAT AS A, UH, A PIECE OF, UH, BACKUP THAT WOULD BE, UM, TIED TO THE VARIANCE.
UM, I, I COULD SEE THAT THAT COULD BE POSSIBLE, BUT WE WOULD NEED A, UM, A LOT MORE INFORMATION AND, UM, WE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR MORE RESTORATION.
I MEAN, THAT'S BEEN A COMMENT FOR MANY, MANY ITERATIONS AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN GETTING RESPONSES TO THAT.
SO IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT JUST ON STAFF.
I THINK THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO PROVIDE US A LOT MORE INFORMATION IN GOOD FAITH
[02:00:01]
THAN THEY HAVE SO FAR.CHAIR RANDBERG, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER PRYER, IF I MAY.
UH, THE APPLICANT ASKED US TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF, AND I THINK WE HAVE PROVIDED SOME DIRECTION AND WE'VE ALSO PROVIDED SOME DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANT, UH, TO WORK TOGETHER FOR A PERIOD OF TIME TO TRY TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT.
I THINK ALL THE COMMISSIONERS AGREE THAT, UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD THIS, YOU KNOW, GET A LITTLE MORE CLARITY ON THIS.
UH, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF, IF FORCED TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT, UH, I HAVE SUBSTANTIAL CONCERNS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, APPROVING SOMETHING THAT'S BEING BUILT IN A FLOODPLAIN.
UH, YOU KNOW, I KNOW PERSONALLY MANY PEOPLE THAT HAVE HAD THEIR HOMES IN A FLOODPLAIN AND HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AND HAVE HAD HADD PROBLEMS GETTING, UH, YOU KNOW, GETTING, GETTING BACK ON THEIR FEET AGAIN.
SO I FIND THIS TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL RISK IN A, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO APPROVE SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY UNKNOWN, UH, IN A FLOODPLAIN WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, GETTING A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF IT.
SO WITHOUT FURTHER STAFF REVIEW, IT'D BE DIFFICULT FOR ME TO, TO MOVE FORWARD IN A POSITIVE MANNER WITH THE APPLICANT ON THIS.
I THINK AS, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DISCUSSED, I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO WORK TOGETHER FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, UNDERSTANDING THAT WOULD BE A BURDEN ON STAFF AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT.
WE'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE BEST THING FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED.
THIS, THE, YOU KNOW, THE CITY, THE APPLICANT, UH, YOU KNOW, SETTING FUTURE PRECEDENT AND ALL THAT.
THAT'S KIND OF THE WAY I FEEL ABOUT THE WHOLE THING AS KRESH YOU WOULD SAY HEARD.
UH, MR. THOMPSON, YOU WERE GONNA, YOU WERE GONNA RESPOND.
I WAS JUST GONNA ADD REAL QUICK THAT, UM, SO, UH, E EVEN FOR, FOR LIZ, AND I FORGET YOUR NAME.
I'M SORRY KATIE HADN'T MET YOU YET.
UM, EVEN THEY, AS LONG AS THEY'VE BEEN HERE, UH, THEY'RE NEW TO THE PROJECT COMPARED TO WHAT WE WERE, WE REALLY HAVE, UM, THERE'S BEEN A, UH, ASSERTION THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN, BEEN PROVIDING INFORMATION WE PROVIDE.
WE'VE GONE ALONG AND PROVIDE LOTS OF INFORMATION.
I JUST WANT TO KIND OF PUT THAT OUT THERE.
AND JUST THE LAST PIECE THAT, UM, UH, SHE SAID THE COMMENT'S BEEN OUT THERE FOR A COUPLE YEARS.
WE, WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN TRYING TO GET THE VARIANCE HEARD FOR.
I THINK IT TOOK A YEAR AND A HALF NOW BECAUSE WITH THE PRIOR STAFF WE WERE TRYING, WE TRIED MULTIPLE ITERATIONS.
WE WERE, YOU KNOW, THAT PRE COVID WE WERE GOING FOR THE OFFICE, WE WERE SHOWING A MITIGATION PLANS, WE WERE TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING AND WE JUST DIDN'T GET THERE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO HAVE IT OUT THERE THAT WE REALLY WERE TRYING.
UM, STANDARD PRACTICE IS NOT TO PLACE VARIANCES ON AN AGENDA UNTIL DESIGN.
UM, SUBSTANTIAL DESIGN COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CLEARED.
AND SO THAT'S BEEN PART OF THE ISSUE IS WAITING FOR NOT JUST WETLAND REVIEW, BUT FLOODPLAIN DRAINAGE, ALL OF THAT.
CAN I MAKE A MOTION? ONE SECOND.
WE GOT ONE, ONE LAST COMMENT FROM THE APPLICANT AND, AND THEN YOU KNOW WHAT, I, I THINK I'M GONNA HOLD THAT COMMENT ON THAT IN RESPONSE TO THAT LAST STATEMENT.
UM, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, AND I THINK WE HAVE AN IDEA THAT HOPEFULLY WILL BE, BE DECENT.
UH, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, I I'M GONNA SAY PERRY ON THAT ONE.
KAYLA, I'M NOT SURE WHO THAT WAS.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING, RAISE YOUR HAND.
UH, I, I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA BE EXACTLY WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA BE EXACTLY WHAT STAFF WANTS, BUT, UH, I I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A COMMON GROUND TO, TO GET, TO GET SOME MOMENTUM OFF OF THE POSITIONS THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, WE'RE IN.
UM, WITH THAT, DO YOU HAVE A A I DO.
IS THAT AN OPTION? WE'RE GONNA, WE'LL WE'LL HAVE A MOTION, YEAH.
AND THEN, AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS IT.
UM, SO THIS IS NOT GONNA BE IN A STANDARD, UM, UM, MOTION FORMAT THAT, UM, WE NORMALLY PREPARE, BUT, UH, WE MAKE A MOTION TO REQUEST THAT STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WORK TOGETHER OVER THE NEXT 45 DAYS, UH, AND BRING THIS BACK TO US USING THE CONCEPT PLAN, UM, USING THE CONCEPT PLAN.
REVIEW, REVIEWING THE CONCEPT PLAN AND THE, AND THE MITIGATION,
[02:05:01]
THE DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED.AND, UH, AND THEN IF STAFF NEEDS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANT PREPARES THAT AS, AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, IF IT'S MITIGATION FOR THE FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FLOOD PLAN HEALTH OR, OR OTHER ELEMENTS.
CAN I ASK FOR CLARIFICATION? WELL, ONE SECOND.
LET, LET'S, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET A SECOND ON THAT.
UH, NICHOLS, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A LITTLE DISCUSSION AND THEN IF YOU STILL HAVE CLARIFICATION, I THINK THAT'S ALLOWED, UH, DISCUSSION, SCOTT.
UM, I, UH, I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY, UH, ONE ROUTE TO GO.
MY ONLY CONCERN BEING THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME LOGGERHEAD FOR SOME, PERHAPS NOT EVEN WITH CURRENT STAFF, BUT OVER TIME BETWEEN THE, UH, THE PARTIES THAT WANT TO BUILD IN, IN, IN THE CITY STAFF, AND, WHICH IS WHY I HAD BROUGHT UP THE IDEA OF A, UM, A JUST A TEMPORARY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION KIND OF BEING INVOLVED IN ORDER TO TRY TO, UH, GET THE BALL ROLLING.
UM, FROM MY BACKGROUND IN, UM, SCIENCE, I SEE THIS NOT AS A FLOODPLAIN ISSUE, BUT AS A, UM, A PHYSICS ISSUE.
I SEE, I SEE PHYSICS, I SEE PUTTING IN A LARGER CULVERT, AND THEN ALL OF THIS OTHER STUFF JUST DROPS OUT OF THE PICTURE AND THAT I DON'T WANT TO GO ON AND ON.
I, I DO ACTUALLY JUST NEED TO, TO INTERRUPT JUST MOMENTARILY AND SAY THAT IF YOU DO AIM TO POSTPONE THIS, YOU NEED TO MAKE A FORMAL MOTION TO POSTPONE.
AND JUST ONE OTHER COMMENT, I MEAN, NO DISRESPECT BY THIS FORMALLY, YOU CANNOT DIRECT STAFF TO DO WORK.
IF YOU INFORMALLY ASK US TO WORK WITH THIS, APPLICANT WILL DO THAT IN GOOD FAITH.
WE WANT TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY WITH YOU.
UH, BUT THAT IS NOT A, A, A MOTION YOU CAN MAKE TO DIRECT STAFF TO ACT.
UM, BUT FORMALLY MOTION TO POSTPONE IS WHAT YOU WOULD NEED TO DO.
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT, YOU CAN EITHER VOTE ON IT APPROVING OR NOT APPROVING, OR YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE, UH, CHAIR BERG.
I'M GONNA MAKE AN AMENDMENT, UM, TO THE MOTION THAT I'M ACTUALLY GONNA RETRACT THE FIRST MOTION
AND, AND I BELIEVE WE AND POSTPONE THIS TO, TO, TO COME BACK TO COMMISSION AND POSTPONE THIS, TO COME BACK TO COMMISSION.
SECOND, KAYLA, CAN I GET A RULING ON LEGITIMACY OF THAT AS A REPLACEMENT MOTION? I, I BELIEVE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE, UM, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS FINE.
UM, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SET A DATE AT THIS POINT.
UM, IT'LL BASICALLY COME BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS WHEN, UM, HOWEVER, I THINK WE'D, WE'D LIKE TO SET A DATE TO, TO HAVE IT BACK HERE.
UNDERSTANDING, UM, AND I'LL WORK WITH STAFF TO, TO TRY TO HOLD THAT SCHEDULE.
I, I THINK THE INTENT IS TO HAVE, UH, A SNAPSHOT IN TIME WHERE STAFF CAN REVIEW SOME THINGS.
AND IF IT'S, IF THEY'RE ONLY COMFORTABLE GIVING, UH, SOME LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE, UM, THE APPLICANT MAY GET THE CONFIDENCE THAT, THAT HE, AND THEY NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A, I DON'T HAVE MY NOTES HERE, UM, CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN, UM, AND MOVE FORWARD.
UM, I, I DO THINK THAT'S BEST DISCUSSED AND KIND OF, UM, REVISITED, UM, BETWEEN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT AS OPPOSED TO A SUBCOMMITTEE OR, OR A WORKING GROUP, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE
UM, UH, I, I THINK THE INFORMATION'S THERE.
I, I THINK WHAT WE CAN BRING IS SOME REQUEST OF STAFF TO WORK IN GOOD FAITH AND, AND ALSO OF THE APPLICANT, UM, TO, TO, TO GET TO A POINT OF, OF, UH, FURTHER CERTAINTY IF IT EXISTS.
AND THEN, AND THEN HAVE IT BACK HERE IN SHORT ORDER TO WHERE WE CAN MAKE A DECISION.
ON, SO, I'M SORRY, LET ME JUST FINISH THAT THOUGHT REAL QUICK.
SO, 45 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER JANUARY 18TH IS MARCH 4TH, UM, BECAUSE WE ONLY
[02:10:01]
HAVE ONE MEETING IN MARCH, THEN THAT NEXT MEETING WOULD BE APRIL 5TH, RIGHT? LET'S, LET'S SAY THAT ONE THEN.WILL, SO DO WE NEED TO, UM, MAKE, ADD THAT ONTO THE MOTION THAT IT WOULD BE, BRING IT BACK AT THE FIRST AVAILABLE DATE AFTER 45 DAYS? OKAY.
I, I, I THINK WE SAY, UH, AT 45 DAYS OR THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING, THE FIRST MEETING, I THINK ONE OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS HAVE A PROCESS QUESTION.
UH, THIS IS JOHN CLEMENT WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, AND, UH, I MANAGE THE REVIEW STAFF.
AND I'M CURIOUS, UH, ON PROCESS AND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR HERE MM-HMM.
UH, YOU SAID TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE THEY CAN MAKE A GO OR NO GO ON, ON A FULL CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN, UM, TO HAPPEN.
AND THEN WHEN YOU COME BACK, UH, WHAT IS THE, WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD YOU BE VOTING ON AT THAT POINT? BECAUSE IF THEY GO FOR CONTRA CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN, THEN THE CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN COMES IN FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
UM, OTHERWISE WE'RE BACK IN 45 OR HOWEVER MANY DAYS AND YOU'RE MAKING THE DETERMINATION AGAIN ON JUST WHATEVER.
WE HAVE STILL WORKED OUT AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE A CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN.
AND IT'S STILL VIOLATING PRECEDENT AS LIZ HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE, WHAT WE GET FROM THE CON CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN ALSO IS, UM, YOU KNOW, CLEAR DIRECTION ON CONDITIONS.
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T DIRECT STAFF AS KENNY WAS SAYING, TO DO STUFF, BUT YOU CAN DIRECT WHAT
UM, THE CONDITIONS GO ON THE SITE PLAN.
WE NEED CONDITIONS THAT ARE ACTIONABLE AS WAS DISCUSSED BEFORE, LIKE IN AUGUST WHEN WE GAVE SEVERAL PRESENTATIONS.
AND, UM, THAT THE, THE WAY WE DO THAT IS THROUGH A CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE FLOOD PLAN.
THIS IS THE RESTORATION PLAN FOR CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, AND THESE ARE THE THINGS THEY'RE DOING.
BIOFILTRATION, UH, THE ROUTING STORMWATER IN PARTICULAR WAY, THE WAY, UH, AS LIZARD SAID, THOSE DON'T GET LOCKED INTO A CONCEPT SITE PLAN AT THAT POINT.
THEY WOULDN'T FORMALLY HAVE WHAT'S KNOWN IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AS A CONCEPT SITE PLAN, EITHER THEY WOULD JUST LITERALLY HAVE THE CONCEPT THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING, SO THEY WOULDN'T BE LOCKED INTO ANY RESTORATION OR MITIGATION YET AT THAT POINT.
AND STAFF STILL THEN WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T HAVE A COMMITMENT, A FORMAL LEGAL COMMITMENT ON WHAT WOULD BE PROVIDED.
SO, JUST, JUST SEEMS LIKE A TO, TO WRAP UP.
JUST TO CLARIFY, EVEN IF WE GET TO A GOOD PLACE ON A CONCEPT PLAN, WE HAVE NO WAY AS STAFF TO FORMALLY RECOMMEND A VARIANCE THAT HASN'T BEEN SUBMITTED THROUGH THE CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN PROCESS, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BY APRIL.
EVEN IF THEY SUBMIT IT TOMORROW, IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN BY APRIL.
SO THE BEST WE CAN HOPE FOR IS COMING BACK TO Y'ALL WITH STILL A CONCEPT PLAN THAT HASN'T BEEN SUBMITTED THROUGH THE FORMAL PROCESS THAT WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT BECAUSE IT HASN'T GONE THROUGH THAT FORMAL CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN PROCESS.
AND, AND WE'LL BE BACK TO YOU WITH THE, THE SAME YES.
IS, IS PART, IS REALLY WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE SAYING.
WE'RE HAPPY TO CONTINUE CONVERSATIONS, BUT I I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CLEAR ON THE INTENT OF COMING BACK IN APRIL.
YEAH, AND I, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT MY, MY HOPE AND INTENT IS THAT MAYBE THERE ARE SOME ELEMENTS, UM, OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, THAT I UNDERSTAND WOULDN'T HAVE ANY LEGAL TIE TO A SITE PLAN, UM, BUT THAT WE COULD CHEW ON AND MAYBE THE APPLICANT MAKES CONDITIONS WHERE THEY WILL AGREE TO THOSE AND WE CAN ROLL INTO A RECOMMENDATION IF WE CHOOSE SOME ELEMENTS OF THOSE, UM, THAT WHERE, WHERE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ARE ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT A CONCEPT, IF NOT A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN.
UM, I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THOUGH THAT IF THERE WERE CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH A FUTURE SITE PLAN, THE VARIANCE IS FOR THIS
[02:15:01]
SITE PLAN, THE VARIANCE GOES WITH THE GRADING PLAN, AND WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A GOOD WAY OF TYING BACK, UM, CONDITIONS TO A FUTURE SITE PLAN THAT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED YET.SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT IS, THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.
UM, ADDING TO THE DISCUSSION, IF THE REQUEST TO SUBMIT, UM, A SITE PLAN HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR A COUPLE YEARS ALREADY, I GUESS MY, MY QUESTION OR I QUESTION IF MORE DETAIL WOULD BE PROVIDED DURING THIS 40 DAY, FIVE DAY PERIOD OR NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, AND, AND IF NOT, THEN IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT THERE WOULD BE MUCH PROGRESS.
BUT, BUT I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UH, THE WORD FUTILITY COMES TO MIND.
UH, STAFF HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT THEY REQUIRE A CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN THAT TO BE ABLE TO CON TO PROCESS ANY OF THESE FINDINGS, THAT'S THEIR POSITION.
I, UH, AND I, YOU KNOW, I RESPECT THE FORTITUDE OF THEIR POSITIONS AND I DON'T EXPECT THEM TO CHANGE THEIR POSITIONS.
AND I THINK THIS IS JUST, WE'RE SPINNING OUR WHEELS.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT STAFF IS SAYING.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT JOHN SAID, AND I AGREE WITH HIM.
AND, AND I DON'T SEE THAT ANYTHING BENEFICIAL IS GONNA COME OUT OF THIS OTHER THAN MY CLIENT'S DELAYED ANOTHER 60 DAYS.
AND SO AT THE BEGINNING, I ASKED FOR AN ACTION BECAUSE MY CLIENT'S TIRED OF SPINNING HIS WHEELS.
AND, AND WITH ALL YOUR, I APPRECIATE THE GOOD INTENTIONS, UH, BUT I JUST, I JUST DON'T SEE, AND I THINK STAFF IS SAYING, I THINK WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING.
UH, IT JUST, NOTHING IS, NO MAGIC'S GONNA OCCUR.
MAYBE THAT'S THE WAY TO
AND, AND SO I, I, I RE URGED MY REQUEST TO, TO TAKE AN ACTION TONIGHT, NOT TO POSTPONE.
UH, WE'RE NOT GONNA GET ANYWHERE AND THIS PROJECT, THIS PROCESS JUST NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD.
SO THE UM, THE TWO OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTIONS, AND I'M SORRY TO JUMP IN HERE, CHAIR RAM, UM, ARE EITHER TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION AS IT STANDS, WHICH IS WHAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED, WHICH THEY ARE NOT GOING TO RECOMMEND THIS, WHICH IS THE MOTION THAT, THAT I HAD PREPARED FOR THIS EVENING.
THE OTHER, UM, MOTION, UH, WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND IT AND SAY, GREAT, GO AHEAD AND DO THIS.
LET'S SET A PRECEDENT FOR HOW FLOODPLAIN IS SEEN IN THE FUTURE.
AND THEN EVERYBODY ELSE CAN USE THAT AS A PRECEDENT.
THIS, THE PRECEDENT IS REQUIRING THE CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN, NOT HAVING ONE.
SO THIS IS TURNED ON ITS HEAD AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT WE, WE HAVE BEEN SPUN AROUND LIKE A TOP AND THIS IS NOT SETTING A PRECEDENT THAT TO, TO GO FORWARD WITHOUT A CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN.
IT'S SETTING A PRECEDENT THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN.
SO FIRST OFF, I WAS STILL TALKING, I APOLOGIZE.
UM, SO WE ARE GIVING YOU AN OPPORTUNITY HERE, UM, TO TAKE THIS BACK, WORK WITH STAFF, COME UP WITH A SOLUTION, GIVE US SOMETHING THAT WE CAN GRAB ONTO SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD THIS IN GOOD FAITH AND SAY, OKAY, GREAT.
LET'S, LET'S DEVELOP THIS POSTAGE SAMPLE FOR PROPERTY IN THE MIDDLE OF A GIANT URBAN AREA.
WE ALL GET THAT, BUT WHAT WE CAN'T DO IS WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, WHICH IS RECOMMENDING THE WAY THAT THINGS ARE WRITTEN RIGHT NOW IN THIS VARIANCE.
YOU KNOW, WE WOULD SEE SO MANY OF THESE COMING FORWARD, UM, EVERYBODY WOULD WANT, YOU KNOW, A VARIANCE WITHIN, WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN.
UM, AND WE JUST CAN'T START THAT WATERFALL RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.
SO WE'RE GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK OUT SOME OF THESE DETAILS, COME BACK, SHOW US THAT YOU'VE DONE THAT, THAT BOTH STAFF AND YOU, AND THEN LET US MOVE FORWARD FROM THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, ECHO THAT COMMENT.
UH, I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO OVERRIDE AND SET A PRECEDENT.
UH, I'M NOT GONNA OVERRIDE CITY STAFF ON THIS AND SET A PRECEDENT GOING FORWARD.
I THINK WE'RE OFFERING A FAIR COMPROMISE TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE
[02:20:01]
THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IF THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH A LITTLE BIT.I KNOW THE APPLICANT WANTS TO PUT THIS TO BED AND MOVE FORWARD.
UH, AND I THINK THERE'S A, A GROUNDSWELL OF SUPPORT FOR YOU, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT MANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS, SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS FEEL RELUCTANT TO SET A PRECEDENT THAT WE WOULD, WE AND FUTURE COMMISSIONERS WOULD HAVE TO LIVE WITH FOR THE REST OF ETERNITY.
AND SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO BE CAUTIOUS IN URGING US TO VOTE IMMEDIATELY ON THIS POINT.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT, YOU HAD A COMMENT.
DO YOU DO JUST WANT US TO SAY NO SO THE PROPERTY CAN BE CONDEMNED AND I MEAN, DO, DO BENEFIT FROM THAT? I MEAN, ARE WE SPINNING OUR WHEELS FOR NO GOOD REASON, TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING WORK THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO WORK? I MEAN, I'M JUST ASKING.
IT'S A VERY OBSERVABLE QUESTION.
IT'S A VERY OBSERVANT QUESTION.
AND THERE ARE LEGAL UNDERTONES WHICH STAFF IS NOT CAPABLE OF ADDRESSING.
I'M SORRY, BUT THAT'S JUST A LEGAL FACT.
AND SO, UM, THERE IS, I USE THE WORD FERTILITY BECAUSE THAT IS A LEGAL TERM IN THIS CONTEXT, AND AFTER SIX YEARS IT'S GETTING CLOSE TO BEING FUTILE TO GO ANY FURTHER.
SO, UM, STAFF HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT, WELL, LET'S BE HONEST, Y'ALL SAY YOU'RE NOT GONNA OVERRIDE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
STAFF SAYS THEY'RE NOT GONNA RECOMMEND WITHOUT A CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN.
I JUST, I DON'T SEE WHERE WE GO IN 45 DAYS, CUZ WE, IT'S NOT EVEN PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE TO, TO SUBMIT AND GET ACCEPTED A CONSOLIDATED SITE PLAN THAT TIMEFRAME.
I'M, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA TRY TO, UM, GET US TO A, A POINT OF PAUSE HERE, UM, AND TAKE A, A NEVERMIND.
I'M GONNA TAKE A, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AND, UH, WE CAN'T ALL HUDDLE UP DURING THIS PROCESS.
UM, BUT I'M GONNA TALK TO THE VICE CHAIR AND THE SECRETARY AND WE'RE GONNA TRY TO COME TO A, UH, SOME STEPS FORWARD, EITHER WITH A REPLACEMENT MOTION OR, UM, OR OTHERWISE I GUESS.
UM, SO WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AND UH, KAYLA WILL TELL ME HOW I'M DOING THIS CORRECTLY.
I JUST WOULD PLEASE BE WARY OF A WALKING QUORUM AND MAYBE LIMIT DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
CAN I JUST MAKE A COMMENT FIRST, UM, IN YES.
THE LAST ONE LAST MINUTE, YES.
JUST THAT I'M LEANING TOWARDS NOT RECOMMENDING THIS, THIS EXPERIENCE TONIGHT.
SHE, SO WE ARE ADJOURNED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
LET'S, UH, GET BACK TO OUR CHAIRS PLEASE.
UM, IT'S GOOD SET PRECEDENT OF HAVING THE ONLY ON TIME RECESS WE'VE HAD SO FAR ALL YEAR.
I'M GONNA RECONVENE THE MEETING.
UM, WE APPEAR TO ALL BE PRESENT AND ACCOUNTED FOR AGAIN, UM, TO DUST OFF WHERE WE WERE.
UM, WE'VE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'VE CLOSED THAT PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'VE REPLACED THAT MOTION, UH, WITH A SLIGHTLY REWORDED ONE THAT SAYS WE'VE POSTPONED THIS ELEMENT FOR, UH, UNTIL THE APRIL, UH, UNTIL, UH, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL, THE, THE FIRST ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING IN APRIL.
UM, AND I'M GONNA ASK FOR A VOTE ON THIS MOTION AND SEE IF WE CAN GET, UH, SOME ELEMENTS OF COMPROMISE FROM THE APPLICANT AND STAFF TO WHAT THEY BOTH CAN DO AND COME BACK TO US WITH POTENTIALLY A LITTLE CLOSER ALIGNMENT ON WHAT THE CONCEPT IS.
SO WITH THAT, UM, LET'S GO AROUND AND, UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS PRESENTED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
DO YOU NEED A SECOND FOR IT? YEAH, I DO.
SO ONCE AGAIN, THE MOTION IS TO POSTPONE THIS ELEMENT FOR 45 DAYS, OR WHICH WOULD IN
[02:25:01]
PRACTICE MEAN IT WOULD COME BACK TO US ON THE FIRST MEETING OF APRIL, WHICH WOULD BE ON APRIL 5TH.AND, UH, THAT WE ASK STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE, UH, VIABILITY OF THE VARIANCES.
UM, ASK AND, AND COME BACK TO US WITH A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, RAISE YOUR HAND.
THIS WILL BE EASIER PRIMER, UH, FOUR OR AGAINST, SORRY.
YOU WERE, YOU WERE UNMUTED AND THEN YOU MUTED YOURSELF AGAINST GOT IT.
UH, KHI FOUR SCOTT AGAINST FOUR.
THIS IS RANDBERG FOUR SECONDARY PRESS FOUR.
COMMISSIONER BARRETT AGAINST COMMISSIONER NICHOLS AGAINST COMMISSIONER NARA AGAINST.
AND ANYONE CAN MAKE A MOTION JUST TO BE CLEAR, EX, UH, POINT OF POINT OF OR ORDER.
OR CLARIFICATION PERHAPS, UM, WAS WHY DO WE NEED ANOTHER MOTION? WELL, IF WE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM, THEN WE NEED ANOTHER MOTION.
IF WE ARE MOOT ON THE AGENDA ITEM, THEN WE JUST MOVE ON.
SO A UM, AN ITEM HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORTH FOR A RECOMMENDATION.
UM, THERE HAS BEEN A MOTION THAT FAILED.
SO THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT OF RECOMMENDATION EITHER TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OR TO DENY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
UM, JUST TO BE CLEAR, SO THIS WILL THEN GO TO THE, UH, ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND SO CODE SAYS THAT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION SHALL NOT SHOULD, BUT SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE VARIANCE AND THEN IT WOULD GO TO THE LAND USE COMMISSION.
SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO RECOMMENDATION.
CHAIR BERG, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER BREMER.
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT, YOU KNOW, I, I GUESS WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE RECOMMENDATION THAT CITY STAFF MADE, WHICH IS TO DENY THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT.
I'M, I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF I PHRASED THAT CORRECTLY, BUT DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? I DO.
UH, WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE IN THE CAN IF YOU WOULD.
BUT THEN I SUGGEST WE VOTE ON THAT.
THE SUBJECT IS EVERGREEN DRAIN DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.
SP 2 22 56 D UH, AT LOCATION IS AT ONE 800 HALF EVERGREEN AVENUE IN AUSTIN, TEXAS.
WHEREAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED REQUESTING 25 DASH EIGHT DASH 2061 G TO ALLOW FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE AND TO VARY FROM LDC 25 8 2 81 C ONE A TO REDUCE THE C E F SETBACK TO 50 FEET AND LDC 25 DASH EIGHT DASH EIGHT, SORRY, DASH 2 81 C TWO B TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE REDUCED 50, UH, C E F SETBACK.
50 FOOT, 50 FOOT, SORRY, C E F SETBACK.
AND WHEREAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE WEST BOLAND CREEK, BOLD CREEK WATERSHED URBAN
[02:30:01]
CLASSIFICATION, DESIRED DEVELOPMENT ZONE.AND WHEREAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THAT SA STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS VARIANCE, HAVING DETERMINED THAT THE FINDING OF FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN MET, THEREFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
SECOND, I CAN, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE DIAS IF I MAY CHAIR YES.
I WAS HOPING THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THE STAFF, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT WITH THE STAFF.
IT APPEARS THAT UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
THAT BEING THE CASE, I CANNOT SUPPORT AN ISSUE THAT WOULD COMPROMISE THE PUBLIC SAFETY.
AND SO I'M GONNA HAVE TO SUPPORT THE STAFF ON THIS RECOMMENDATION.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT POINT I WANT TO MAKE HERE, BUT I I DO THINK, UM, THIS IS A, AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION THAT THE APPLICANT'S IN AND THAT STAFF IS IN AS WELL.
UM, AND, UH, MAYBE AS A COMMISSION WE JUST DISCUSS OVER THE COURSE OF THIS YEAR A LITTLE BIT HOW, UM, HOW WE TRY TO GET AHEAD OF THESE A LITTLE BIT.
CUZ IT FEELS LIKE IT IS WRAPPED AROUND THE AXLE FOR THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE NEXT TO AUSTIN'S PIZZA.
UM, BUT, UH, I, I, I, I HEAR AND SHARE COMMISSIONER AAR'S POINT ABOUT, UM, UH, WE LEAN ON STAFF FOR THEIR ANALYSIS OF, UH, FINDINGS OF FACT AND, UH, AND, AND THE PURPOSE OF THESE VARIANCES.
AND IT'S DIFFICULT WHEN, UH, WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION, UH, WITH WHICH TO ANALYZE.
UM, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT, I JUST WANT TO AGREE.
UM, WE'LL GO BACK AROUND THE HORN.
WE DID SUCH A GOOD JOB LAST TIME.
UH, COMMISSIONER BRIMER, ARE YOU FOR, UH, THIS MOTION, WHICH IS TO, UH, DENY THE TWO VARIANCES? I VOTE TO DENY THE TWO VARIANCES.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT, COULD WE GET A CLARIFICATION OF WHAT FOR AND DENY MEANS, PLEASE? YES.
THE, THE MOTION IS TO, DID EVERYBODY JUST VOTE THE SAME? IS WHAT? CHAIR, CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION? YES, PLEASE.
IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION VOTE.
IF YOU ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DENY VOTE NAY AYE OR NAY.
SO BRIMER HAS VOTED AYE SHERRA HAS VOTED NAY.
UH, I THINK THAT I IS TO DENY THE SUPPORT TO DENY CORRECT THREE I OKAY.
IS IN SUPPORT TO DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCES.
AND SHU WAS AN AYE ALSO TO DENY.
SECRETARY BRISTOL ABSTAIN BARRETT BIXLER AYE.
SO THE MOTIONS FOR THE VARIANCES HAVE BEEN, UH, RECOMMENDED AS DENIED.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMITTEE REPORTS? NO.
UM, MY COMMITTEE PORT WAS, IS, UM, THAT, UH, HOPEFULLY, UM, 19 ACRES WILL BE ADDED TO THE BALK COUNTY'S CANYON LANDS PRESERVE.
[COMMITTEE REPORTS]
COMMISS IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.UM, MET YESTERDAY LAST NIGHT AND WE PASSED THE RESOLUTION TO ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO INCLUDE THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD IN GETTING, UM, ASKING
[02:35:01]
THAT THE BOARD BE SOUGHT OUT FOR INPUT WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND STAFF ARE MAKING DECISIONS ON THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.