[00:00:05]
[Call to Order]
ORDER THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.WE ARE CONVENING AT 6 0 1 AT AUSTIN CITY HALL AND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
WE ARE GONNA HAVE A INITIAL ROLL CALL.
I DO NOT SEE COMMISSIONER GARRETT.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, VICE CHAIR GREENBERG HERE.
I HAVE NOT SEEN COMMISSIONER STERN AND COMMISSIONER SECRETARY THOMPSON HERE.
THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
SO WE'RE GONNA GO TO THE CONSENT
[Consent Agenda]
AGENDA.I'LL READ THAT INTO THE MINUTES.
THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUSTIN AUSTIN 1 20 23.
THERE'S A TYPO ON THE LINE HERE, BUT IT'S APPROVAL OF THE MIDST OF AUGUST 1ST, 2023, NOT AUSTIN.
ITEM TWO, REZONING CASE C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 5 5.
PALMER DESAL REZONING PROJECT.
IT IS AT 1610 EAST PALMER LANE IN THE WALNUT CREEK WATERSHED.
IT IS, UM, FROM GR TO CSS ONE.
ITEM THREE, SITE PLAN EXTENSION IS A DISCUSSION ITEM.
IT'S SP 20 17 43 CT MARQUEE RANCH SELF STORAGE AT 97 18 ANDERSON MILL ROAD.
AND THIS IS AN, AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ONE YEAR EXTENSION GRANTED TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN.
UM, ITEM FOUR, FINAL PLATT C 8 20 23 DASH 0 6 7 0.0 A NER SUBDIVISION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY STAFF.
AND ITEM FIVE IS AN ADDENDUM TO THE AGENDA.
IT IS A FINAL PLATT C 8 22 3 0 0 6 7 0.0 A AND LIGHTENER SUBDIVISION.
AND IT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY STAFF.
SO THE CONSENT AGENDA IS THE MINUTES.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES? OKAY.
SO THE MINUTES ITEM TWO IS A CONSENT ITEM.
ITEM THREE IS A DISCUSSION ITEM.
ITEM FOUR AND FIVE HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN BY STAFF.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? COMMISSIONER GREENBERG MOTIONS SECOND COMMISSIONER FLORES.
THE CONSENT AGENDA IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
SO WE WILL GO TO CHAIR COMMISSIONER ON ANDREW RIVER.
AND THAT INCLUDE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING OR APPLICABLE.
THAT INCLUDE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[3. Site plan extension appeal: SP-2017-0143C(XT) - Marquis Ranch Self Storage - Austin]
PLAN EXTENSION S SP 2017 DASH 0 1 4 3 C XT MARQUEE RANCH SELF STORAGE 97 18 ANDERSON MILL ROAD.THIS IS AN APPEAL TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO BE, TO GRANT GRANTED TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN.
SO THE ONLY THING WE'RE TAKING UP TONIGHT IS THE APPEAL TO THE SITE PLAN.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CASE OR THE MERITS OF THE CASE OR ANY OF THE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
WE'RE JUST TAKING UP THE APPEAL OF THE PROJECT, WHETHER IT SHOULD BE APPEALED.
UM, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WHEN WE GET TO VOTE.
I'LL EXPLAIN HOW THE VOTE WILL WORK, BUT IT'LL BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
BUT FOR THIS PRESENTATION, STAFF WILL DO THEIR INITIAL PRESENTATION AND THEN THE APPELLANT WILL HAVE THEIR PRESENTATION AND THEN THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE THEIR PRESENTATION.
THEN I GUESS THE APPELLANT CAN HAVE A REBUTTAL IF THEY WANT TO AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
SO IT'S PRESENTATION BY STAFF.
I'M GABRIEL GREER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND I'M THE CASE MANAGER FOR SP 20 17 0 1 43 C X T MARQUIS RANCH SELF STORAGE AUSTIN.
THE PROJECT IS LO IS LOCATED AT 97 18 ANDERSON MILL ROAD.
THE SITE PLAN EXTENSION WAS ADMINISTRATED ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED ON JUNE 8TH, 2023 BASED ON LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 25 5 62 C, WHICH ALLOWS STAFF TO EXTEND A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ONE YEAR.
THE APPEAL WAS SUBMITTED WITHIN THE 20 DAY APPEAL PERIOD.
THE APPELLANT IS PRESENT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS TO THE NATURE OF THEIR APPEAL, AND THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT.
AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR PROCESS AND ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS.
CHAIR WILL NOW HEAR FROM MS. CINDY BARON AS THE APPELLANT.
MS. BARON, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
[00:05:06]
HELLO, MY NAME IS CINDY BARON.UM, AND FUNNY YOU'VE POINTED OUT THAT TYPO.
'CAUSE WE KIND OF THOUGHT THIS WAS A TYPO.
UM, THEY HAD FILED FOR AN EXTENSION ON A SITE PLAN, WHICH WAS AT THE TAIL END OF THE MAYOR'S LAST EXTENSION ORDER, UH, CUTTING OFF THE DATE TILL MARCH 1ST, 2022.
AND THEY DIDN'T FILE THEIR EXTENSION UNTIL MAY 12TH, 2022.
UM, AND IT, THE AMANDA WAS SHOWING A DATE OF MAY 31ST AS THEIR, UM, FINAL DATE.
AND WE WERE GOING, SOMETHING'S WRONG HERE.
AND SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS SIMPLY A TYPO.
BUT THEN WE GOT A LETTER, AND I THINK IT WAS PRESENTED TO Y'ALL FROM MR. LLOYD THAT CLAIMS THAT D S D CAME UP WITH THIS, UM, TWO MONTH DELAY PERIOD WHERE PEOPLE COULD FILE A SHORT FORM EXTENSION REQUEST AND THEN FOLLOW UP BEFORE THE END OF MAY.
WITH THE DETAILED STUFF, WE WEREN'T AWARE OF THIS AND DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE WAS AWARE OF IT, IF THE COUNCIL WAS OR THE CITY MANAGER OR, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW CAN YOU DO THAT WITHOUT APPROVAL OR GOING THROUGH, UH, LAND USE POSTINGS RULE OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW? AND SO TO ME IT SOUNDED A LITTLE, LITTLE BOGUS AND THEIR EXPLANATION FOR HOW THEY COULD DO IT AND WHY THEY DID IT JUST DID NOT SEEM RIGHT AT ALL TO US.
AND, UM, THEY COULD NOT PROVIDE US WITH, UH, PROOF THAT THE APPLICANT HAD FILED THE SHORT FORM AT, ON THAT DATE OF MAY 12TH, BECAUSE, EXCUSE ME, THEIR SYSTEM IS NO LONGER, THE WEB PORTAL IS NO LONGER ACTIVE, SO THEY HAVE NO PROOF, BUT WE HAVE ALL THE PROOF.
SO I MEAN, I COULD GO ON AND ON ABOUT THIS PROJECT, BUT, UM, WE'RE HERE MAINLY FOR THE APPEAL.
YOU KNOW, IT'S THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE, THE MAYOR'S ORDERS.
AND, UM, SO HOW THEY WERE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT TWO MONTH, UM, DELAY THEY CALLED IT SO IT WOULDN'T PUT A STRAIN ON THE IT INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH KIND OF BLOWS MY MIND.
HERE WE ARE IN THE, THE SUPREME HUB OF THE NATION OTHER THAN SILICON VALLEY
SO, UM, WE'VE HAD OTHER ISSUES WITH THIS PROJECT AND THAT THEY STARTED CONSTRUCTION IN JANUARY WITHOUT A APPROVED, UM, EXTENSION APPLICATION WITHOUT, UH, AN APPROVED SITE PLAN.
UM, AND, AND THE LIST IS ENDLESS OF THE ISSUES WE'VE HAD.
THIS IS A SITE THAT CONTAINS THE SECOND HIGHEST PRIORITY SENSITIVE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE IN AUSTIN.
AND, UM, YOU CAN'T JUST GO IN THERE WILLY-NILLY AND WITH YOUR LITTLE MACHINES AND MESS AROUND THESE SINKHOLE AND THESE CARS FEATURES.
AND SO THEY HAD NOTHING TO GO ON.
AND AT THE TIME WE FILED THE COMPLAINT, THE CASE MANAGER WAS NO LONGER WITH THE CITY.
THE, UM, APPLICANT'S ENGINEER HAD DROPPED THE CA THE PROJECT.
UH, WE HAD TO GO THROUGH MCKENZIE KELLY'S OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHO WE COULD TALK TO.
EVEN NOBODY WAS RESPONDING TO OUR CALLS AND, UM, WE COULDN'T GET AN EXPLANATION FROM D S D WHY THEY CHANGED THAT DATE, WHO, HOW, HOW, WHY, WHEN IT WAS CHANGED.
AND THEY WAITED TILL AUGUST 8TH OR NINTH TO PROVIDE Y'ALL WITH A LETTER EXPLAINING IT.
SO HERE WE ARE, WE HAVE THE PROOF AND THEY DON'T.
WE'LL NOT HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
MR. MATHIAS, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES.
GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS RICHARD MATHIAS AND I REPRESENT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
[00:10:01]
TODAY AND, UH, HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS HER CONCERNS AND HER FRUSTRATION, WHICH I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE.UH, HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT ACTED IN GOOD FAITH SUBMITTED THE EXTENSION REQUEST WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY CODE, BY TIME ALLOWED BY STAFF.
WE PROCESSED THAT, THAT, UH, THAT THAT APPLICATION AGAIN IN GOOD FAITH MEETING ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS AND IT WAS GRANTED.
AND WE BELIEVE RIGHTFULLY SO, I'LL LET STAFF ADDRESS ANY MORE PARTICULARS ABOUT THE MAYOR'S ORDINANCE
UH, BUT I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE IS I BECAME INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT AFTER THEY FILED THE EXTENSION REQUEST.
UM, SOME OF YOU DON'T KNOW ME, BUT I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 44 YEARS AND THEY WERE GETTING SOME TERRIBLE ADVICE AND, UH, UM, I THINK THEY JUST WEREN'T KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE PROCESS.
UM, THEY, IT, IT IS TRUE THAT THE APPLICANT BEGAN CONSTRUCTION BE WHILE THE, UM, EXTENSION WAS BEING CONSIDERED.
UH, IT WAS THEIR UNDERSTANDING THAT IF YOU CAN CONTINUE WHILE THE EXTENSION'S BEING CONSIDERED, THAT'S WRONG.
THEY GOT RED TAGGED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTOR.
I BECAME ENGAGED AND IMMEDIATELY, UH, CORRECTED THEM AND SAID, YOU CANNOT DO THIS.
WE WORKED DILIGENTLY AND HARD WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTOR.
WE CLEARED, CORRECTED ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE CREATED OUT THERE IMMEDIATELY.
I THINK THE ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTOR WOULD ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE BEEN MORE THAN COOPERATIVE.
WE DID OUR BEST TO FIX A WRONG, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE STARTED CONSTRUCTION.
UM, COULD YOU SHOW THE PICTURES PLEASE? I CAN ALSO APPRECIATE THE, THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE, UH, FEATURES ON THIS SITE.
HOWEVER, THESE, THESE FEATURES ARE IN ARE, ARE, ARE AT HIGH RISK.
UH, THERE IS A LOT OF CAMPING GOING ON SITE.
WE'VE HAD TO CALL THE POLICE DEPARTMENT NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.
UH, I THINK ALL OF YOU KNOW HOW THIS WORKS.
UH, IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET TO GET PEOPLE OFF THE SITE.
UH, I THINK THERE'S ONE MORE SLIDE, BUT THERE'S TRASH AND DEBRIS ALL OVER THE PLACE.
THAT'S NOT HEALTHY FOR THIS CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE.
THE BEST THING WE CAN DO IS DEVELOP THE SITE AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE DONE AND PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WAY.
UM, GRANTING THIS APPEAL IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
IT'S NOT GONNA PREVENT THE PROJECT FROM BEING BUILT.
ALL IT'S GONNA DO, UM, IS DELAY THE CONSTRUCTION BY TWO YEARS TO GET A NEW SITE PLAN PERMIT.
IT'S GONNA COST THE DEVELOPER A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY.
IT'S NOT GONNA FIX THE PROBLEM.
THE SITE PLAN MEETS ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS, UH, RESUBMITTING AN APPLICATION.
IT WOULD ULTIMATELY GET APPROVED.
SO GRANTING THE APPEAL REALLY DOESN'T SERVE A PURPOSE.
AND AGAIN, UH, WE'RE IN AGREEMENT, UH, WITH THE STAFF THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DENIED.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
CHAIR WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPELLANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
AS I SAID, THIS PROPERTY ENCOMPASSES A C E S FEATURE THAT IS ALSO CONTROL UNDER THE CONTROL OF T C E Q.
THEY DID NOT HAVE APPROVAL TO START THEIR CONSTRUCTION AND THERE'S A LOT OF FRONT WORK THAT THEY DID NOT DO.
THE LANDOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TRASH AND ALLOWING THE BUILDUP OF THE HOMELESS PEOPLE AND THEY WERE NOT DOING THEIR DUE DILIGENCE TO TAKE CARE OF THAT PROPERTY.
HE ALSO SAID THAT THEY HAVE CORRECTED EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT TRUE.
THEY ARE CONTINUING TO CON THEY WERE DOING CONSTRUCTION DURING THIS APPEAL PROCESS AND HAVE CONTINUED TO RECEIVE MATERIALS ON SITE, PROBABLY 60 LOADS OF, UH, BASE AND RIP WRAP AND THIS AND THAT ALL WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF T C E Q OR AN APPROVED, UH, SITE PLAN EXTENSION.
SO WE JUST HAVE A TRUST PROBLEM.
SO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS AFTER? NO.
I SENT YOU A BOATLOAD OF INFORMATION.
SO ENJOY YOUR, IT WAS ALL ON THE BACKUP.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKER'S ON THIS ITEM.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
[00:15:02]
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GREENBERG AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FAUCI? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, THIS FROM MR. MATTHIAS? YOU SAID COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, YOUR MICROPHONE IS, I KIND OF TILTED UP.
IF YOU COULD PULL THAT DOWN TO YOU.
UM, MA'AM, YOU SAID YOU PROCESSED THE APPLICATION IN GOOD FAITH, UM, BUT YOU BECAME INVOLVED AFTER THE EXTENSION REQUEST WAS FILED.
SO DO YOU HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION THAT THERE WAS THIS SHORT FORM FILED? NO MA'AM.
I DON'T, I WAS TOLD BY THE CITY STAFF THAT IT WAS, IT MUST HAVE BEEN, IT WAS FILED, BUT NO MA'AM, I, I I I CAN'T SAY THAT I HAVE THAT.
UM, I, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WOULD'VE ACCEPTED THE APPLICATION ON MAY 12TH HAD WE NOT HAD SOMETHING FILED BEFOREHAND.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE ENGINEERING FIRM REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT IS NO LONGER AROUND AND WE CAN'T FIND HIM.
BUT, UM, HE WOULD BE THE PERSON THAT WOULD HAVE IT.
BUT AGAIN, I, I THINK, I DON'T THINK STAFF WOULD'VE ACCEPTED OUR, OUR MATE.
OUR FINAL SUBMITTAL PACKAGE HAD THE PREREQUISITE, IF YOU WILL BEEN NOT BEEN SUBMITTED PRIOR TO, UM, THE MARCH DEADLINE.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT UNLIKE THE REST OF US HUMANS, STAFF NEVER MAKES MISTAKES? NO.
BUT I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY KEEN ON THEIR MINDS, UH, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEING AWARE THAT IT WAS EXPIRING.
SO I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, EARLIER ON, ALONG EARLIER IT WAS MENTIONED THAT CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS HAVE CONTINUED TO BE DELIVERED TO THE SITE.
DOES THAT CONSTITUTE A CONTINUATION OF CONSTRUCTION? IS THAT PERMITTED OR WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED SOME KIND OF VIOLATION? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, ROSEMARY AVILA, PLANNING OFFICER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UH, WE LET THE ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS KNOW THAT, UH, WORK HAD TO STOP ONCE, UM, THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING TWO WEEKS AGO.
SO THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER AND THEIR SUPERVISOR ARE AWARE THAT WORK SHOULD BE STOPPED.
SO IF IT IS THE CASE THAT MORE MATERIALS HAVE JUST BEEN DROPPED OFF AND THEY'RE JUST SET THERE, DOES THAT CONSTITUTE WORK AS FAR AS STAFFER IN THE ENVIRONMENT AS FAR AS YOUR CONCERNED? I BELIEVE MATERIALS BEING DROPPED OFF IS, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE WORK.
UM, THE SHIFTING OF GROUND DOES AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTOR WOULD HAVE TO RED TAG.
AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTOR SATISFIED WITH, UH, THE ISSUES THAT WERE, UH, THAT MR. MATTHIAS SAID WERE ADDRESSED? UM, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
SORRY, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, WHICH IS, WAS THE EXTENDED SITE PLAN OR THE, WHATEVER YOU WANNA SAY, THAT SITE PLAN EXTENSION FOR MULTIFAMILY OR FOR SELF STORAGE, LIKE DID THEY ALLOW A CHANGE OF USE WITH THE SITE PLAN EXTENSION? HELLO COMMISSIONERS, UH, GABRIEL GROVE D SS D UM, THE EXTENSION IS TO IS FOR THE STORAGE ONLY.
IT'LL BE MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ONCE THE SITE PLAN EXTENSION WAS APPROVED, THEY WERE AUTHORIZED TO GO UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND I GUESS WE'RE TOLD TO STOP WHENEVER THE APPEAL WAS FILED.
IS THAT CORRECT? CAN'T HEAR OVER HERE.
UM, MY, MY QUESTION WAS ONCE THE SITE PLAN EXTENSION WAS APPROVED, THEY WERE AUTHORIZED TO START CONSTRUCTION.
ONCE THE APPEAL WAS FILED, THEY WOULD'VE BEEN TOLD TO STOP.
SO THERE WAS A PERIOD BY WHICH THEY WERE UNDER CONSTRUCTION LEGALLY ACCORDING TO THE PERMIT.
UH, ONCE THE EXTENSION WAS APPROVED, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT, UM, DURING THE APPEAL PROCESS THEY HAVE TO STOP CONSTRUCTION.
UM, ONCE THE APPEAL PROCESS IS OVER, THEY WILL, THE EV INSPECTOR WILL BE TOLD THAT CONSTRUCTION CAN COMMENCE.
[00:20:03]
YES.UM, UH, MISS MARY LEAVING, BUT, UH, JUST A QUESTION, LOOKING THROUGH THE BACKGROUND ON THE T C E Q, EDWARD
SO THAT'S A WHOLE SEPARATE PROCESS AND NOT RELATED TO THE SITE PLAN.
SO THERE'S NO OVERLAP THERE? NO.
OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER FLORES? I DO HAVE, NOT QUESTION, BUT MORE OF COMMENTS.
THE T C Q IS LIKE A SEPARATE MATTER AND IT STILL HAS TO BE DONE.
WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS APPROVED OR NOT.
EVEN IF THEY GO THROUGH A SITE PLAN, AGAIN, IT'S GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE T C Q PROCESS.
I JUST HAD A MEETING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF EARLIER TODAY ABOUT ANOTHER PROJECT WHERE CONSTRUCTION STARTED ILLEGALLY.
AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE AND IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE.
AND I'M GLAD THAT IT'S STOPPED AND TAKING CARE OF, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT SEEMS LIKE A NOTWORTHY PUNISHMENT TO MAKE THE APPLICANT GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN FROM THE START, IT'S NOT GONNA DO ANYTHING GOOD FOR THE LAND OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? UM, YES, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I GET THE TIMELINE.
SO ORIGINALLY EXTENSIONS NEED TO BE, THERE WAS A MARCH DEADLINE ORIGINALLY FOR EXTENSIONS, BUT IN THE BACKUP THERE IS, LET'S SEE HERE.
IT SAYS THAT IN FEBRUARY, UH, D S P ISSUED A DISASTER DECLARATION OF JULY FOR EXTENSIONS THROUGH MAY 31ST OF LAST YEAR.
AND THEN THE APPLICATION WAS FILED ON THE 12TH OF LAST YEAR.
AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, AM I MISSING A DATE FOR WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD SOMETHING SUBMITTED BY, I, I THINK BY CODE, BY THE, THE MAYOR'S PROCLAMATION.
MARCH 15TH IS WHEN THEY WERE ALL SUPPOSED TO EXPIRE.
BUT STAFF OF D S D SAID GET IT, GET A SHORT FORM APPLICATION IN BY THAT DEADLINE AND THEN IT'S GONNA TAKE US SEVERAL WEEKS AND, AND MONTHS TO GO THROUGH THOSE, REVIEW THEM, COMMENT ON 'EM AND GET 'EM FULLY APPROVED.
THEY WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND IT WASN'T UNTIL MAY 12TH THEY ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION.
MORE INFORMATION WAS GIVEN IN TOWARDS THE END OF MAY.
THEY WERE GIVEN THEIR APPROVAL FOR THE SITE PLAN EXTENSION.
SO THERE WAS TIMEFRAME BETWEEN MARCH 1ST AND MAY WHEN THEY HAD AN EXTENSION, SUPPOSEDLY HAD A SHORT FORM EXTENSION FILE.
SO NO ONE COULD PROVE WHETHER IT WAS OUT THERE OR NOT.
UM, BUT THEN ON MAY 12TH STAFF SAID, HEY, WE'VE GOT COMMENTS ON SOMETHING.
SO IF THEY'RE COMMENTING ON SOMETHING, I ASSUMPTION IS THEY WERE COMMENTING ON THE SHORT FORM APPLICATION 'CAUSE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE JUST COMMENTED ON NOTHING.
SO THEY COMMENTED ON SOMETHING, APPLICANT UPDATED THAT AND ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS THE STAFF HAD, AND THEN IT WAS APPROVED.
SO PROOF OF THE SHORT FORM IS THAT WE HAVE SOME KIND OF DOCUMENTATION OF COMMENTS RELATING TO IT.
WHAT'S THE DATE OF THE COMMENT FORM? THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT STAFF ASKED COMMENTS AND THEN THE, IN THE BACKUP STAFF SAID YES, YES, EVERYTHING WAS FOLLOWED, EVERYTHING WAS APPROVED.
SO I'M GOING OFF THE MEMO IN THE BACKUP WHERE STAFF WILL SAID YES, EVERYTHING WAS DONE APPROPRIATELY.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE THE SHORT FORM APPLICATION.
THAT WAS A ONE TIME DEAL THAT THEY PUT UP A PROCESS TO PROCESS THE SHORT FORM APPLICATIONS.
AND THEN WHEN THEY WENT DOWN, WHEN IT WAS DONE THAT THAT PART OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM WENT AWAY.
UH, SO NONE OF THAT IS THERE, BUT AGAIN, THEY, THEY ASKED COMMENTS, COMMENTS WERE ADDRESSED, IT'S BEEN APPROVED AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
DOES THAT MAKE, DOES THAT HELP YOUR TIMEFRAME? YEAH, IT, IT DOES.
BUT, UH, I THINK COMMISSIONER GREENBERG ASKED LIKE, DO WE HAVE A DATE OF WHEN THOSE COMMENTS WERE MADE? YEAH.
WHEN WAS COMMENTS? MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK UP THE COMMENT FORM.
UM, SO THE PORTAL WENT OPEN ON THE WEBSITE AND THERE WAS A LINK FOR PEOPLE TO CLICK ON.
AND ABOUT A DOZEN OF US, MYSELF INCLUDED, UM, WERE GOING THROUGH THOUSANDS OF REQUESTS AND I WAS A ONE TO APPROVE THIS ONE.
I, SO IT WAS A SMARTSHEETS WEBSITE AND WE
[00:25:01]
JUST WENT ON SMARTSHEETS.WE LOOKED UP THE CASE NUMBER, WE LOOKED UP THE REASONING, AND AGAIN, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF REQUESTS TO GET DONE WITHIN TWO WEEKS VERY QUICKLY, UM, BEFORE THESE EXPIRATIONS STARTED HAPPENING.
UM, SO IF THE DATABASE WAS CHANGED, WHICH THIS ONE WAS TO MAY 31ST, IT'S BECAUSE WE SAW IT IN THE SMARTSHEETS OF THE CASE NUMBER.
SO WE WEREN'T CHANGING ANY OTHER CASE NUMBERS THAN THE ONES THAT WE SAW ON SMARTSHEETS.
UM, WITH THE TIMELINE THAT THE WEBSITE HAD IT SHUT DOWN RIGHT AFTER THE APPLICATION DEADLINE.
SO NO APPLICATION SHORT FORMS COULD BE FILLED OUT 'CAUSE THE WEBSITE WAS PULLED.
SO YOU ENTERED SOMETHING WITH COMMENTS? YES.
I, I CHANGED THE DATE BASED ON SMARTSHEET, UM, REQUEST.
BUT THE COMMENTS, WHEN WERE COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO WHAT WAS SUBMITTED.
UM, THE REQUEST WAS ANYONE COULD REQUEST MORE TIME AND STAFF EVALUATED HOW CLOSE THEY WERE TO PERMITTING.
UM, STAFF DETERMINED HOW MUCH MORE TIME THEY NEEDED.
AND AGAIN, WE ALLOWED TWO MONTHS FOR THEM TO FILE THE OFFICIAL EXTENSION APPLICATION.
SO THERE WERE NO COMMENTS TO WHAT WAS SUBMITTED ON THE SHORT FORM, JUST THIS CHANGE OF DATE.
COMMENTS FROM STAFF OR COMMENTS FROM THAT? YEAH.
UM, NO, THERE ARE NO COMMENTS FROM ME.
SO THEY MADE, THEY MADE AN APPLICATION, YOU REVIEWED THAT, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE IT.
BUT BY THE TIME YOU REVIEWED IT, YOU AGREED, SAID OKAY.
MAY 31ST IS YOUR DEADLINE? YES, I APPROVED THE REQUEST AND CHANGED THE DATE AND I NOTIFIED THE APPLICANT THAT THEIR DATE WAS CHANGED TO THE MAY 31ST DEADLINE.
WHICH ALLOWED, UM, AGAIN, THOUSANDS OF APPLICATIONS TO BE SUBMITTED OVER TWO MONTHS INSTEAD OF ONE DAY.
AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT DATE THAT WAS EITHER? UM, THE DAY THEY FILED COMPLETENESS CHECK WAS MAY 12TH.
WE DID NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
IT WAS ALL IN ONE SMARTSHEET SPREADSHEET OF JUST KNOCK 'EM ALL OUT.
BUT THE, THE THAT WENT DOWN THE DAY AFTER THEY WERE ALL DUE.
SO IT'S, THEY COULDN'T HAVE FILED THEIR REQUEST.
THEY COULDN'T HAVE FILED THE REQUEST IN MAY 'CAUSE THE SYSTEM WASN'T UP AND RUNNING.
SO THEY ALL INDICATIONS ARE THEY FILED IT BEFORE THE MARCH 15TH DEADLINE, WE JUST DON'T HAVE A COMPUTER PRINTOUT THAT VERIFIES THAT.
UM, THE MOTION ON THIS ONE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THAT IF YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THE APPEAL, THE APPEAL, THEN YOU WOULD SAY, YES, WE SUPPORT THE APPEAL.
AT WHICH POINT IN TIME THE PERMIT WOULD EXPIRE AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS AGAIN.
IF THE MOTION IS TO DENY THE APPEAL, THEN THE PERMIT IS HELD VALID AND STILL IN PLACE AND THEY CAN START CONSTRUCTION.
SO WITH SUPPORT OF THE MOTION IS A SUPPORT OF THE DENIAL, WHICH TERMINATES THE PERMIT.
EVERYTHING STOPS AND THEY GO THROUGH THE WHOLE REVIEW PROCESS AGAIN, DENIAL OF THE, UM, APPEAL.
APPEAL APPROVES THE PERMIT ALLOWS TO MOVE FORWARD.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG? UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO GRANT THE APPEAL WHICH WOULD RESULT IN REVERSING THE DECISION TO GRANT THE SITE PLAN EXTENSION.
UM, BASICALLY THERE IS NO PROOF THAT A SHORT FORM REQUEST WAS FILED BEFORE THE SITE PLAN EXPIRED.
STAFF CAN'T CONFIRM WITH CERTAINTY AND THEY SAY, SO THEY CAN'T CONFIRM WITH CERTAINTY THE SUBMITTAL OF ANY SHORT FORM REQUEST.
UM, STAFF OR THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF THE SHORT FORM THAT WAS SUBMITTED OR BE ABLE TO DOCUMENT THAT THE SHORT FORM WAS ACCEPTED.
UM, WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTATION TO THE CONTRARY, UM, I BELIEVE WE CAN REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS NO SHORT FORM SUBMITTED ON TIME.
UM, SO THAT'S WHY I THINK WE SHOULD GRANT THE APPEAL.
THE ONLY POINT I WOULD MAKE IS WE JUST HAD STAFF TESTIFY THAT THEY, SHE WAS THE ONE THAT APPROVED IT AND IT WAS DONE BEFORE THE MARCH 15TH, UM, DEADLINE.
SO IT, IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN, SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOUR MOTION, BUT OKAY.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? CAN I TO THE MOTION, SORRY.
THE SMARTSHEET IS STILL BEING USED NOT FOR THIS SPECIFIC FORM, BUT LIKE FOR SITE PLAN EXEMPTIONS OR SOMETHING SIMPLE AS THAT.
AND THE WAY IT WORKS IS LIKE YOU SUBMIT AND THEN THE SMARTSHEETS EMAIL SENDS YOU AN EMAIL.
AND SO IF THE ORIGINAL ENGINEER IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND, THEN THERE'S NO, LIKE YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE IT IN AMANDA WHEN IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, BUT IT'S A PROCESS THAT IT'S STILL HAPPENING.
IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A BIG PUNISHMENT FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER.
[00:30:01]
UM, WITHOUT A SECOND.IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? THERE IS A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? OKAY.
I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THIS WAS A COMMON OCCURRENCE.
ARE THERE MANY INSTANCES WHERE THIS COULD COME UP AGAIN, WHERE WE WILL NOT HAVE EVIDENCE OF FORMS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO RELY ON STAFF ASSURANCE THAT IT WOULD, THAT THAT THE PROCESS WAS SWALLOWED? IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT PROBABLY IS.
I KNOW STAFF IS LOOKING AT COMPLETELY REDOING THE ENTIRE APPLICATION PROCESS.
SO THERE'S A WHOLE NEW PROGRAM COMING TO REPLACE AMANDA.
SO ALL THIS IS GONNA GET CHANGED GOING FORWARD, BUT RIGHT NOW THERE PROBABLY ARE MORE EXTENSIONS THAT IF SOMEONE, UM, MADE A APPLICANT MADE A MOTION TO DENY THEN THAT WE COULD BE HEARING THOSE.
BUT ONLY IF SOMEONE ACTUALLY MAKES A MOTION TO DENY.
UM, I'VE NEVER, THIS IS THE FIRST DENIAL I'VE HAD.
SO I'M KIND OF STUMBLING A LITTLE BIT THROUGH ALL OF THIS 'CAUSE I'VE NEVER HAD ONE OF THESE BEFORE.
BUT IF AMANDA IS REPLACED, I HOPE THEY DON'T JUST THROW AWAY ALL THE DATA THAT'S STORED JUST IN AMANDA.
THAT'S GONNA BE A NIGHTMARE WHEN THAT HAPPENS, BUT THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT ISSUE.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY, WHICH MEANS THE PERMIT WOULD STAY IN SUPPORT AND THEY WOULD CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION.
AND IF YOU VOTE, AYE YOU'RE VOTING TO DENY THE APPEAL.
WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 OPPOSED? WE HAVE ONE OPPOSED? AND IS THERE ONE ABSTENTION? ONE ABSTENTION.
I THINK THERE'S ONLY EIGHT OF US.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR REGULAR AGENDA.
ARE THERE ANY ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION? FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, COMMITTEE REPORTS,
[COMMITTEE REPORTS ]
CODES AND ORDINANCES.UH, WE HAVE A PHONE CALL THURSDAY OR I HAVE ONE TO GO OVER THE AGENDA, BUT WE HAVE DO HAVE A MEETING NEXT WEEK.
A SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
WE DO HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED, BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN.
A MEETING BEFORE IT'S FIRST WEEK IS SEPTEMBER, I THINK.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO ADJOURN? YOU CAN JUST ADJOURN.